ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMMITTEE

The following is a rough draft of the captioned proceedings taken on September 11, 2004 at the "Still Waiting" Forum at the University of Western Ontario. This draft is not a verbatim, certified transcript and may not be relied upon as such.

THE ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ODA) COMMITTEE, LONDON REGION PRESENTS THE MICHAEL LEWIS MEMORIAL SYMPOSIUM STILL WAITING: A FORUM FOR MOVING AHEAD -- COMMENCED AT 8:45 A.M.

LORIN MACDONALD: GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE MICHAEL LEWIS MEMORIAL SYMPOSIUM STILL WAITING: A FORUM FOR MOVING AHEAD. I EXTEND AN ESPECIALLY WARM WELCOME TO THOSE VISITING LONDON AND KING'S UNIVERSITY COLLEGE FOR THE FIRST TIME. MY NAME IS LORIN MACDONALD. AS A LAW STUDENT AND A PERSON LIVING WITH A DISABILITY, I HAVE FOLLOWED WITH GREAT INTEREST OVER THE PAST DECADE THE POLITICAL PATH OF THE ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. FOUR MONTHS AGO, I EAGERLY ACCEPTED THE CHALLENGE TO ASSIST KATHY LEWIS IN THE PLANNING OF THIS FORUM. FROM THE OUTSET, OUR GOAL WAS TO EDUCATE, CHALLENGE AND MOTIVATE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU SO THAT TOGETHER, WE MAY REALIZE A FULLY ACCESSIBLE ONTARIO. I AM VERY FOND OF THIS QUOTE BY DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: "OUR LIVES BEGIN TO END THE DAY WE BECOME SILENT ABOUT THINGS THAT MATTER."

THE MANY INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT MAKE UP THE ODA COMMITTEE ACROSS THIS PROVINCE HAVE SHOWN THEMSELVES TO BE ANYTHING BUT SILENT. IT IS IN BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER THAT WE LEARN FROM AND FORTIFY EACH OTHER. BUT LET US NOT FORGET THAT THIS DAY IS ALSO A MEMORIAL TO MICHAEL LEWIS, AN AVID SUPPORTER OF A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE ODA WHO REFUSED TO GIVE UP ON THE DREAM OF A BARRIER-FREE ONTARIO. IT IS WITH REGRET THAT I NEVER HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF MEETING MICHAEL, BUT THROUGH KATHY, I HAVE LEARNED MUCH ABOUT THIS KIND AND GENTLE MAN. WE PAY TRIBUTE TO HIM TODAY. IT HAS BEEN AN HONOUR TO WORK WITH KATHY LEWIS AND THE MANY DEDICATED VOLUNTEERS WHO HAVE MADE THIS FORUM POSSIBLE. I KNOW YOU WILL BE ENRICHED TREMENDOUSLY BY YOUR EXPERIENCE HERE. AND NOW, PLEASE JOIN ME IN WELCOMING KATHY LEWIS.

KATHY LEWIS: NOBODY ACCOMPLISHES ANYTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE ALONE. IF ANY OF US, REGARDLESS OF ABILITY, ARE SKILLED AT ANYTHING OR SUCCEED IN ANY OF OUR ENDEAVOURS, IT IS BECAUSE AT SOME TIME IN OUR LIVES, SOMEONE, WHETHER IT BE A FAMILY MEMBER, COMMUNITY SUPPORTER OR TEACHER, BELIEVED IN US AND HELPED US TO GET WHAT WE NEEDED.

THE COMING TOGETHER OF ALL THESE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM TESTIFIES TO THIS POWER OF COLLECTIVE ACTION AND WILL. WE ARE UNITED HERE IN COMMON PURPOSE BECAUSE WE NEED EACH OTHER TO WORK TOWARDS A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. WE ARE BONDED BY OUR CARING FOR THE QUALITY OF OUR OWN LIVES AND THE LIVES OF THOSE WE LOVE. WE ARE HERE BECAUSE MICHAEL LEWIS LOVED HIS INDEPENDENCE, WAS RAISED BY A FAMILY WHO ALLOWED HIM TO DISCOVER THE WORLD IN HIS OWN WAY, AND IN AN INSTITUTION FOR THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED AT A TIME WHEN A STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BELIEVED IN INVESTING IN PERSONNEL WHO COULD PROVIDE THE LIFE SKILLS AND ASSERTIVE MOBILITY TRAINING THAT ALLOWED MICHAEL TO ACHIEVE THE INDEPENDENCE IN WHICH HE TOOK SUCH PRIDE. THAT WAS AN ACT OF GOVERNMENTAL POLITICAL WILL WITHOUT WHICH MICHAEL COULD NOT HAVE REACHED HIS POTENTIAL AS A MUSICIAN, EXTRAORDINARY FATHER AND HUSBAND, AND DISABILITIES ADVOCATE. BUT HE ALSO KNEW THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WITH VARIOUS DISABILITIES, AND HE WORKED TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WE ALL LIVE. WHEN HE DIED, PEOPLE GAVE MONEY TO SUPPORT A COLLECTIVE EFFORT TO IMPROVE LIVES FOR ALL ONTARIANS. WITH THIS MONEY WE WERE ABLE TO FUND THIS

FORUM. PEOPLE CAME TO ME TO OFFER ME HELP OF ALL KINDS. I CANNOT BEGIN TO THANK THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PLAYED SUCH A CENTRAL ROLE IN ORGANIZING THIS EVENT. YOUR WORK AND SUPPORT HAVE BEEN OF INESTIMABLE VALUE, AND SERVE TO REMIND ME JUST HOW CRITICAL IT IS FOR US TO COME TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY WORKING TOWARDS A COMMON GOAL. WE ARE HERE TOGETHER TODAY BECAUSE WE SHARE A VISION OF ACHIEVING DIGNITY AND EQUALITY FOR ALL PEOPLE, REGARDLESS OF ABILITY. IN THIS ROOM THERE ARE SEASONED ACTIVISTS, POLITICIANS, ACADEMICS AND PROFESSIONALS, MANY OF WHOM LIVE THEIR DAY-TO-DAY LIVES WITH DISABILITIES AND WHO ARE -- WHO ARE STILL WAITING FOR THE DAY THAT THEY CAN CELEBRATE A STRONG, EFFECTIVE, ENFORCEABLE ODA. MY GRATITUDE GOES OUT TO ALL OF YOU IN THIS ROOM, ESPECIALLY TO THOSE WHOSE PRACTICAL HELP AND ADVICE MADE THIS FORUM POSSIBLE. TO THOSE CABINET MINISTERS WHO HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO BE WITH US, I THANK YOU. WE'RE HONORED TO HAVE MR. ADAM NAGLER FROM THE PREMIER'S OFFICE AS WELL AS REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE ACCESSIBILITY DIRECTORATE. WE ARE ALSO HONORED TO HAVE MINISTER BOUNTROGIANNI COMING AND THE HONORABLE CHRIS BENTLEY. INVITATIONS WERE PERSONALLY EXTENDED TO ALL MUNICIPAL PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL POLITICIANS, INCLUDING THE CONSERVATIVE AND NDP MEMBERS. MOST SHOWED AN INTEREST

AND ASKED FOR A RECORD OF TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS. ON SHORT NOTICE, THE NDPS SENT US IRENE MATTHYSEN. IS IRENE HERE? I THINK SHE WILL BE COMING THIS AFTERNOON. MANY HOURS OF VOLUNTEER TIME AND IN-KIND DONATIONS WENT INTO THIS FORUM. I WOULD ESPECIALLY LIKE TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE LORIN MCDONALD FOR PROVIDING ORGANIZATION AND MAKING SURE THAT NO DETAILS WERE OVERLOOKED. YOU CAN BLAME HER IF THERE ARE ANY! PLEASE PLEASE! (LAUGHTER). AND KATHLEEN HIGGINS, WHO IS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE, CATHERINE TURNER FROM KING'S COLLEGE AND, OF COURSE, DAVID LEPOFSKY WHO PROVIDED MUCH NEEDED ASSISTANCE ALONG THE WAY AND SENT ME REALLY, REALLY VILE E-MAILS! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS LIKE GETTING E-MAILS FROM DAVID! (LAUGHTER). TO ALL THE VOLUNTEERS WHO ARE HERE TO HELP THINGS RUN SMOOTHLY TODAY AND YOU KNOW WE DON'T HAVE TO RUN REALLY SMOOTHLY AGAIN -- PLEASE FEEL FREE TO MOVE AROUND AS YOU NEED TO -- I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK OUR SPONSORS, PARTICULARLY ROGERS TELEVISION AND STREAMING DIGITAL MEDIA WHO IS GOING TO MAKE THIS DAY AVAILABLE ON WEBCAST FOR THREE MONTHS -- SO WE DON'T HAVE A DATE FOR ROGERS CABLE YET BUT WE WILL -- FOR RECORDING THIS -- I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THOSE PEOPLE FOR RECORDING

THIS HISTORIC DAY AND IT IS A HISTORIC DAY. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK EVERYBODY AND TO ALSO THANK THOSE PEOPLE AND TO HONOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT BE WITH US FOR WHATEVER REASON AND WHO DO NOT HAVE THE ACCESS THAT THEY NEED. WE'RE GOING TO MAKE PROGRESS HERE TODAY. WE ARE MOVING AHEAD. WE'RE NOT LOOKING BEHIND, ALTHOUGH WE WILL SPEND A FEW MINUTES LOOKING AT WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO TRY TO GET ACTION UNDER INEFFECTIVE LEGISLATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (APPLAUSE). I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE COUNCILLOR JUDY BRYANT FROM THE CITY OF LONDON WHO WILL INTRODUCE CHRIS BENTLEY. THE HONORABLE CHRIS BENTLEY.

COUNCILLOR JUDY BRYANT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT IS AN HONOR TO BE HERE TODAY. I BRING YOU GREETINGS ALSO FROM THE CITY OF LONDON, FROM OUR MAYOR, AND OUR CITY COUNCIL, AND I'M PARTICULARLY HAPPY TO SEE THERE ARE COUNSELORS HERE TODAY. COUNCILLOR WHITE, COUNCILLOR EAGLE AND FORMER COUNCILLORS. ... (INAUDIBLE)... IT IS WONDERFUL! ALSO, I WAS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T KNOW MICHAEL BUT THANK YOU, KATHY. IT WAS -- IT

IS A HUGE HONOR TO BE HERE TODAY. GIVEN THE TIME AND TALENT THAT PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM GIVE, I KNOW IT IS AN ENDORSEMENT OF WHAT HE HAS DONE. AND I WOULD ALSO JUST LIKE TO THANK BEFORE I INTRODUCE THE HONORABLE CHRIS BENTLEY THANK DAVID LEPOFSKY FOR EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE WITH THE COMMITTEE TO BRING US TO THE STAGE WE'RE AT AT THIS TIME TO MOVE FORWARD. THERE'S LOTS TO DO AND WE MUST TO ADVANCE FROM THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE BY US AND BY MICHAEL LEWIS AND BY THE COMMITTEE. IT IS MY HUGE PRIVILEGE TODAY TO INTRODUCE THE HONORABLE CHRIS BENTLEY. THANK YOU. (APPLAUSE).

THE HON. CHRIS BENTLEY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M DELIGHTED TO BE HERE. I'M DELIGHTED TO BE HERE AS WE CONTINUE THE JOURNEY THAT SO MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN ON FOR SO LONG. A JOURNEY THAT HAS SUCH AN OBVIOUS END AND THAT END IS THAT ALL PEOPLE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE FULLY AND ACTIVELY IN OUR SOCIETY TO THE EXTENT THEY WISH LIMITED ONLY -- LIMITED ONLY BY THE EXTENT OF THEIR DREAMS. I HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT WITH YOUR GREAT EFFORTS OVER MANY YEARS AND WITH THE ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT OF THE MINISTER I'M ABOUT TO INTRODUCE THAT WE WILL REACH THAT END. I MET MANY OF YOU

DURING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN WHEN YOU HELD A FORUM IN LONDON, AND I HAVE MET MANY OF YOU AT THE DOORSTEP AND I HEARD ABOUT MANY OF THE ISSUES FOR MANY YEARS. I WOULD LIKE TO APPLAUD YOU FOR YOUR COURAGE, I WOULD LIKE TO APPLAUD YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP, I WOULD LIKE TO APPLAUD YOU FOR YOUR REFUSAL TO LET ANY BARRIER PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL OR INSTITUTIONAL DETER YOU FROM YOUR ULTIMATE GOAL. THE PERSON I'M ABOUT TO INTRODUCE HAS TAKEN UP YOUR CAUSE WITH UNBRIDLED ENTHUSIASM. SHE HAS TWO AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY. ONE AS MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, A NEWLY CREATED MINISTER. SHE HAS RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MANY DIFFERENT SILOS RELATING TO CHILDREN'S SERVICES ARE COORDINATED, STRENGTHENED AND ENHANCED. AS A MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, SHE HAS BEEN GIVEN A PORTFOLIO SMALL IN NUMBER OF PEOPLE, BUT HUGE IN RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE SHE HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DELIVERING ON THE PREMIER'S COMMITMENT, THE PREMIER'S COMMITMENT TO HELP YOU ACHIEVE YOUR VISION. THE HONORABLE DR. MARIE BOUNTROGIANNI HAS TAKEN UP THIS CHALLENGE AND YOU KNOW THROUGH MANY YEARS OF ADVOCACY, THROUGH MANY YEARS OF DAY-TO-DAY LIVING YOU KNOW WHAT THE BARRIERS ARE, BUT YOU KNOW THAT

ALL IT TAKES IS HARD WORK TO OVERCOME THEM AND THE REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ANY BARRIER IS INSURMOUNTABLE. THE MINISTER HAS TAKEN UP THE CHALLENGE, HAS BEEN TIRELESSLY MOVING FORWARD AND I KNOW YOU WILL BE VERY INTERESTED, AS I WILL, IN HEARING ABOUT WHERE WE ARE AND WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE BECAUSE THERE ISN'T WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO GO. THERE IS A "HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE" SO WITH NO FURTHER INTRODUCTION, I'M DELIGHTED TO INTRODUCE MY COLLEAGUE, MY VERY ENTHUSIASTIC COLLEAGUE, THE HONORABLE DR. MARIE BOUNTROGIANNI. (APPLAUSE).

THE HON. DR. MARIE BOUNTROGIANNI: THANK YOU CHRIS AND GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. IT IS A PLEASURE TO BE HERE WITH MY FRIEND, THE MINISTER OF LABOR. CHRIS BENTLEY HAS SPENT HIS CAREER ACTIVELY WORKING TO ADVANCE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL CITIZENS. HE IS AN INVALUABLE ALLY FOR ALL OF US WHO WANT A STRONG ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. HE'S VERY DEFINITELY MY ALLY AT THE CABINET TABLE AS I AM HIS. COMING FROM HAMILTON I AM AN ALLY OF THE MINISTER OF LABOR. (LAUGHTER). IT'S A SPECIAL HONOR TO BE HERE FOR THIS SYMPOSIUM NAMED AFTER MICHAEL LEWIS. MICHAEL LEWIS WAS A CHAMPION OF JOY, OF FUN, OF PASSION -- A CHAMPION

FOR ALL PEOPLE AND MICHAEL WOULDN'T GIVE UP. THAT'S SOMETHING MICHAEL'S WIFE KATHY KNOWS WELL. MICHAEL MET KATHY ONE EVENING WHEN HE WAS PERFORMING IN MY HOMETOWN OF HAMILTON. HE TALKED WITH HER UNTIL 3:00 IN THE MORNING AND THEY WERE TOGETHER EVER AFTER. MICHAEL IS RIGHTLY CELEBRATED FOR HIS MUSIC. I AM SURE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DELIGHTED TO KNOW THAT THIS YEAR HE WAS GIVEN THE LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD AT THE LONDON MUSIC AWARDS. MICHAEL IS EQUALLY CELEBRATED FOR HIS LIFE-LONG DEVOTION TO SOCIAL JUSTICE. THAT DEVOTION WAS THE INSPIRATION FOR HIS THREE ROUSING DISABILITY SONGS "STILL WAITING", THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW", AND "WE DO TOO". ONE YEAR AGO THIS WEEK AS MICHAEL LAY GRAVELY ILL HE WAS PURSUING THAT LOVE. IT WAS DURING THIS TIME THAT HE PREPARED A COLUMN FOR THE LONDON FREE PRESS. MICHAEL WROTE, "FOR ME AND OTHERS WITH DISABILITIES ACCESSIBILITY IS DEFINED BY THE POWER TO MAKE ONE'S OWN CHOICES. ANYTHING THAT DISALLOWS ANY ONE CHOICE OVER HOW OR WHERE THEY LIVE, WHERE THEY CAN GO, OR WHERE OR WHO GIVES THEM CARE IS A BARRIER THAT MUST BE REMOVED." THAT BELIEF OF MICHAEL IS A BELIEF OF EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM. WE MUST MAKE IT A BELIEF AND A

BELIEF TURNED INTO ACTION OF EVERYONE IN OUR PROVINCE. I'M GOING TO JUST PAUSE FOR A MOMENT TO SMILE FOR THE CAMERA (LAUGHTER) BECAUSE THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY PICTURES OF ME GOING ... THANK YOU. (LAUGHTER). (APPLAUSE). IT WAS TEN YEARS AGO THIS NOVEMBER WHEN 20 DISABILITY ADVOCATES FORMED THE ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMMITTEE. WHILE PROGRESS HAS BEEN SLOWER THAN ANY OF US WOULD WANT, THERE HAS BEEN PROGRESS. YOUR WORK HAS PUT DISABILITY ISSUES SQUARELY ON THE POLITICAL AGENDA OF ONTARIO. YOUR WORK IS MOVING OUR PROVINCES AHEAD. YOUR WORK IS OFFERING VERY REAL HOPE TO ALL ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES, THEIR FAMILIES, FRIENDS AND CAREGIVERS. YOU MUST ALWAYS REMEMBER THE INSPIRATION OF MICHAEL LEWIS AND -- IN HIS WORDS -- "BE AMAZED THAT HOPE AND COURAGE IS ALIVE." ONTARIO LIBERALS WERE BY YOUR SIDE WHEN WE WERE IN OPPOSITION AND WE ARE BY YOUR SIDE NOW. STEVE PETERS, NOW OUR PROVINCE'S MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD, HELD PUBLIC MEETINGS ALL OVER ONTARIO TO BRING ABOUT SUPPORT FOR STRONG DISABILITY LEGISLATION. GERALDINE COPPS, A CITY COUNCILLOR FROM HAMILTON, WAS THE FIRST MUNICIPAL POLITICIAN TO SUPPORT

THE ODA COMMITTEE A DECADE AGO. AND LATER THIS MORNING WE ARE HOLDING A TRIBUTE IN HAMILTON FOR DOMINIC AGOSTINO WHO WAS THE LIBERAL PARTY'S FIRST CRITIC FOR DISABILITY ISSUES. AND, OF COURSE, DALTON MCGUINTY -- NOW PREMIER MCGUINTY -- HAS SUPPORTED THE GOALS OF YOUR COMMITTEE THROUGHOUT HIS YEARS AT QUEEN'S PARK. LAST YEAR THE PREMIER WROTE TO DAVID LEPOFSKY AND THE ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMMITTEE STATING: "WE BELIEVE THAT THE HARRIS-EVES GOVERNMENT'S ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT DOES NOT EVEN BEGIN TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE NEEDS AND RIGHTS OF COUNTLESS ONTARIANS. WE WILL INTRODUCE A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE ACT." AS SOON AS WE TOOK OFFICE THE PREMIER ASKED ME TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THAT LEGISLATION READY TO GO AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. TO REACH THAT OBJECTIVE WE HAVE WELCOMED CONSULTATIONS WITH A WIDE RANGE OF ONTARIANS INCLUDING -- AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME -- A WEBCAST WITH MORE THAN 2,000 STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES. AMONG THE INCREDIBLY VALUABLE ADVICE I RECEIVED WAS THE MAJOR NEW DISCUSSION PAPER FROM THE ODA COMMITTEE. IN THAT PAPER YOU PROPOSED OPTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE AND

ENFORCEMENT IN A REFORMED ACT. AS YOU WROTE IN YOUR THOUGHTFUL DOCUMENT: "THIS SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCEMENT IN THE COMPULSORY SENSE. IT SHOULD BE A COMBINED COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT PROCESS. THIS MEANS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD CO-OPERATIVELY WORK WITH ORGANIZATIONS TOWARDS ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WHERE POSSIBLE. IT SHOULD HOWEVER RESORT TO COMPULSORY ENFORCEMENT ONLY WHEN THIS HAS NOT SUCCEEDED." THE SIMPLE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE SHOULD ALL BE ABLE TO RIDE TRANSIT, SHOP IN STORES, RECEIVE AN EDUCATION, OBTAIN HEALTH CARE AND GET A JOB WITHOUT FACING BARRIERS. THAT MEANS ENDING PHYSICAL AND NON-PHYSICAL BARRIERS. THAT MEANS ENDING BARRIERS THAT ARE TECHNOLOGICAL, CONTRACTUAL, BUREAUCRATIC, INFORMATIONAL AND ATTITUDINAL AS WELL AS PHYSICAL. THAT MEANS ENDING BARRIERS FOR ONTARIANS WITH VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE DISABILITIES. THE ODA COMMITTEE COINED A VERY SIMPLE PHRASE TO EXPLAIN THE ULTIMATE GOAL: A "BARRIER-FREE SOCIETY". TO ME, THIS IS AN ISSUE OF HUMAN RIGHTS. WE CANNOT IMAGINE A JOB REFUSED TO SOMEONE BECAUSE HE OR SHE COMES FROM LONDON, BUT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS IN REALITY WHEN SOMEONE FROM LONDON WITH DYSLEXIA IS FORCED TO FILL

OUT A WRITTEN JOB APPLICATION ON THE SPOT. WE SHOULD NOT TOLERATE HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AND YET PEOPLE WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES OR MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES FACE COUNTLESS COMPARABLE ISSUES -- REAL BARRIERS TO SUCCESS -- FROM UNINTENTIONAL BARRIERS, BUT VERY REAL, NONETHELESS. I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO THE ODA COMMITTEE FOR PUSHING FOR THE VERY BROADEST DEFINITION OF DISABILITY. THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS YET TO PERMEATE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR THE MEDIA'S CONSCIOUSNESS AND WE HAVE MUCH WORK TO DO TOGETHER ON THIS MATTER. IN FACT, WE HAVE MUCH WORK TO DO TOGETHER ON A RANGE OF ISSUES. THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH MY CAUCUS COLLEAGUES ONE FROM ONE, INCLUDING CHRIS BENTLEY, TO ASK TO FOR THEIR STRONG BACKING. WITH THE FULL SUPPORT OF THE PREMIER, I FULLY INTEND TO INTRODUCE THIS LEGISLATION THIS FALL. (APPLAUSE). WITHIN ONE YEAR OF OUR ELECTION, OUR GOVERNMENT WILL, THEREFORE, BE BRINGING FORWARD LEGISLATION TO DELIVERY ON PREMIER MCGUINTY'S COMMITMENT TO THE ODA COMMITTEE. LET ME BE CRYSTAL CLEAR. THIS ISSUE MATTERS DEEPLY TO MINISTERS CHRIS BENTLEY AND STEVE PETERS. IT MATTERS DEEPLY TO ME. IT MATTERS DEEPLY TO

THE PREMIER. CREATING A BARRIER-FREE ONTARIO IS FUNDAMENTAL TO MAKING OUR PROVINCE THE MOST CIVILIZED PLACE IN THE WORLD IN WHICH TO LIVE. IT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO TAPPING THE FULL POTENTIAL OF EVERY ONTARIAN. IT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO REACHING THE FULL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND HUMAN POTENTIAL OF OUR PROVINCE. IT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO EMBRACING AND CELEBRATING OUR COMMON HUMANITY. WHAT I HAVE HEARD THROUGHOUT THE PAST MONTHS WILL BE REFLECTED IN WHAT I PROPOSE AND I HAVE HEARD ABOUT A GREAT DEAL. THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR. ACCOUNTABILITY, EMPLOYMENT, ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE, INCLUDING MONITORING, PROCUREMENT AND PENALTIES, PLANNING, STANDARDS, PUBLIC AWARENESS AND EDUCATION. THAT'S VERY KEY. BEST PRACTICES. TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND BUILDING CODES. MUNICIPAL SERVICES, INCENTIVES, THE RANGE OF DISABILITIES INCLUDING INVISIBLE DISABILITIES. I'M A PSYCHOLOGIST. THIS ONE IS VERY CLOSE TO MY HEART. MULTIPLE BARRIERS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND LEADERSHIP. INTEGRATING GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND PROGRAMS. AS I HAVE PAID ATTENTION I HAVE BEEN IMPRESSED BY BOTH THE PATIENCE AND THE PRAGMATISM OF ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES. I HAVE ALSO BEEN IMPRESSED BY THE GOODWILL EXPRESSED BY THE OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED

EVERYBODY'S HELP TO MAKE CHANGE. LAST WINTER WE HAD THE FIRST EVER ROUNDTABLE -- THE FIRST EVER IN THE COUNTRY I WAS TOLD BY DAVID LEPOFSKY -- A CONSULTATION WITH BOTH ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES, CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES, AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND I CAN TELL YOU -- AND SOME OF YOU WERE IN THAT ROOM -- THERE WAS MORE COMMON GROUND THAN THERE WERE DISAGREEMENTS AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE FOR ME AS ONE MINISTER TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES ON MY OWN. WE NEED TO SPREAD OUT RESPONSIBILITY. IT CANNOT BE THE FOCUS OF JUST ONE MINISTRY OR EVEN ONE GOVERNMENT. IT MUST BE THE FOCUS OF US ALL. WE NEED SHORT RANGE ACTION LIKE THE NEW MEASURES WE'LL BE PROPOSING. WE NEED MEDIUM RANGE ACTION, LIKE ONGOING WORK AMONG THE DISABLED COMMUNITIES, THE PRIVATE SECTOR, GOVERNMENT AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO KNOCK DOWN EXISTING BARRIERS AND HELP PREVENT THE CREATION OF NEW BARRIERS AND WE NEED LONG RANGE ACTION. WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR SOCIETY'S MINDSET ABOUT DISABILITY. THAT IS THE MESSAGE THAT MOST PASSIONATELY CAME THROUGH TO ME FROM YOUNG ONTARIANS, FROM STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES. WE NEED TO RAISE A GENERATION OF ONTARIANS WHO ARE ACUTELY AWARE OF ACCESSIBILITY, WHO ARE DETERMINED TO CREATE THAT TRULY BARRIER-FREE SOCIETY. THAT IS THE MESSAGE WE LEARNED FROM THE HISTORY OF THE ODA COMMITTEE. TEN YEARS AGO AN UNHEARD

OF GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT HELPED BRING ABOUT THE PASSAGE OF DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGISLATION IN ONTARIO AND YOU HAVE BROUGHT THAT PURPOSE TO LIFE. A FLAME LIT BY 20 PEOPLE HAS BECOME A CENTERPIECE OF THE AGENDA OF THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT. THAT FLAME IS GROWING BRIGHTER EVERY WEEK, EVERY MONTH, EVERY YEAR. THIS LONDON REGION OF THE ODA COMMITTEE HAS ALWAYS BEEN CREATIVE IN MAKING OUR SHARED DREAM COME CLOSER TO REALITY. YOU PRODUCED AN EXCELLENT DOCUMENT, "LIFE IN A CITY FULL OF BARRIERS", TO HIGHLIGHT THE NEED FOR A STRONG ODA. YOU BROUGHT MEDIA COVERAGE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MARKET AREAS THAT WERE INACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH CERTAIN DISABILITIES. YOU ORGANIZED THE FIRST ALL CANDIDATES' MEETING ON DISABILITY ISSUES. I'M VERY PLEASED THAT TODAY YOU ARE CONTINUING THAT WORK, CONTINUING THAT CREATIVITY. WE HAVE MUCH WORK TO DO AS INDIVIDUALS AND TOGETHER IN THE MONTHS AND YEARS AHEAD. WE ALL NEED TO BE MOVED BY THE POWER, THE PASSION AND THE LOVE OF HUMANITY OF MICHAEL LEWIS. MICHEAL TAUGHT US THAT HOPE AND COURAGE ALWAYS MUST BE ALIVE. HE TAUGHT US TO BE AMAZED AT THE WHOLE HUMAN SPIRIT. THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME THIS MORNING. THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY

ACCOMPLISHED AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR DETERMINATION TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT STILL LIES AHEAD. AND LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT WHEN I COME FORWARD WITH PROPOSALS FOR STRENGTHENING ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT I VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO CARRY ON WORKING WITH YOU IN PARTNERSHIP AND IN FRIENDSHIP. ON A PERSONAL NOTE -- AND THIS IS WHAT I TELL EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE OR HOW CAN WE DO THIS -- IN 1975 I WAS AN ENGINEERING STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO. I THEN WOKE UP AND SWITCHED TO PSYCHOLOGY BUT I WAS AN ENGINEERING STUDENT. I MARRIED AN ENGINEER SO NO OFFENCE TO ENGINEERS. THERE WAS CERTAIN CO-OPS UNAVAILABLE TO ME BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FEMALE WASHROOMS, AND WHEN WE QUESTIONED THAT AS WOMEN, YOUNG WOMEN, WE WERE TOLD, "IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.", "VERY FEW WOMEN COME BY HERE." "IT'S NOT WORTH THE EXPENSE." CAN YOU IMAGINE IN THE YEAR 2004 A YOUNG FEMALE ENGINEERING STUDENT BEING TOLD THAT? THERE WOULD BE BEDLAM! IT WOULD BE FRONT PAGE NEWS. WE WERE JUST SHOVED AWAY. I THINK I BECAME A FEMINIST THAT DAY! (LAUGHTER). THAT IS HOW I WOULD LIKE PEOPLE TO THINK IN A FEW YEARS TIME. YOU IMAGINE THERE WAS A TIME IN ONTARIO WHEN THEY COMPLAINED ABOUT THE COST OF A RAMP? IMAGINE THERE WAS A TIME IN ONTARIO WHEN PEOPLE WITH

TOURETTE'S SYNDROME WERE TURNED AWAY FROM RESTAURANTS BECAUSE THEY WERE DISTURBING THE PATRONS? DO YOU REMEMBER HOW THE NEANDERTHAL PEOPLE WERE BACK THEN? THAT'S THE VISION. THAT'S MY PERSONAL VISION AND I KNOW YOURS AS WELL. WITH YOU AND WITH OTHER PEOPLE OF DETERMINATION AND GOODWILL, WE CAN HELP ALL ONTARIANS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE THE MOST OF THEIR LIVES. TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN. I CAN'T WAIT TO PROPOSE THESE CHANGES. I CAN'T WAIT FOR A STRONGER ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. LET'S BE PATIENT FOR A FEW WEEKS LONGER AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE OVER THE YEARS. THANK YOU. (APPLAUSE).

JIM JONES: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DR. BOUNTROGIANNI. I REALLY APPRECIATED IT. AND IT'S MY HONOR ONCE AGAIN TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LONDON AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF EVERYONE HERE TODAY. THANK YOU. WE VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD FOR THE LEGISLATION COMING FORWARD AND IT'S TRUE THAT COMPLIANCE ALL KINDS OF DISABILITIES IS VERY MUCH IN THE FORWARD AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO GO. THANK YOU SO MUCH. (APPLAUSE).

KATHY LEWIS: THANK YOU. WE JUST NEED A FEW MOMENTS TO PREPARE THE STAGE FOR OUR NEXT -- THE NEXT PART OF OUR AGENDA SO IF EVERYBODY WANTS TO GET UP AND MOVE AROUND. WE DO NEED THE STAGE LOWERED HERE SO THAT BETTE CAN TAKE THE STAGE. DON'T TAKE A LONG BREAK THOUGH. -- SHORT BREAK. -- RESUMED AT 9:35 A.M.

KATHY LEWIS: COULD EVERYONE TAKE THEIR SEATS PLEASE? WE WOULD ASK THAT PEOPLE MOVE UP CLOSER TO THE FRONTS. THERE ARE SEATS IN THE FRONT THAT ARE AVAILABLE. WE'RE GETTING TOO MUCH CONGESTION IN THE BACK. PEOPLE ARE NOT ABLE TO MOVE AROUND. THERE'S A WHOLE FRONT ROW OF SEATS HERE. FILL THEM PLEASE. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT IF YOU NEED ANYTHING WHATSOEVER, THAT THERE ARE VOLUNTEERS THAT ARE WATCHING THE AUDIENCE. IF YOU NEED ANYTHING AT ALL PUT YOUR HAND UP AND A VOLUNTEER WILL COME TO YOU AND HELP YOU OUT IN WHATEVER WAY YOU NEED. WELL NOT "WHATEVER WAY" BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN! (LAUGHTER). PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE PEOPLE IN WHEELCHAIRS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. YOU KNOW PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES CAN BE KIND OF AN UNRULY CROWD. (LAUGHTER).

AGAIN, IF THERE IS ANY ONE WHO NEEDS INFORMATION IN BRAILLE OR LARGE PRINT, PLEASE PUT UP YOUR HAND IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY RECEIVED IT. THERE IS SOMEBODY WITH A HAND UP. IF THERE IS A VOLUNTEER... DOUG MORTON IS BRINGING ALTERNATIVE FORMATS TO YOU. IT WAS THIS GENTLEMAN IN THIS ROW. WE NEED TO THANK DOUG MORTON. BY THE WAY, HE IS JUST DOING A TERRIFIC JOB. (APPLAUSE). HE IS ON THE ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE, LONDON.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: JUST TEST THIS MIKE PHONE TO MAKE SURE IT IS WORKING WELL. CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? EXCELLENT. GREAT. HELLO EVERYONE. MY NAME IS ASHFAQ HUSAIN. I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING THE CHAIR OF THE CITY OF LONDON, ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THAT IS JUST ONE OF THE ROLES THAT I PLAY HERE IN THE CITY. I AM AN ACTIVE VOLUNTEER. I ALSO SERVE ON THE BOARD OF THE DIRECTORS FOR THE CNIB, SOUTHWEST REGION AND SIT ON THE INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER, BUT ONE OF THE JOBS THAT I ENJOY REALLY MOST IS BEING ON THE PTA AT MY SON'S SCHOOL BECAUSE I GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO LET TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL KNOW ON SOME OF THE ISSUES OF ACCESSIBILITY. AND THEN, OF COURSE, THAT TIES IN

NICELY WITH THE WORK THAT I DO OR I SHOULD SAY VOLUNTEER WORK THAT I DO AT CITY HALL. JUST A COUPLE OF HOUSEKEEPING ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE WE GET INTO THE SESSION. I WILL KEEP THEM BRIEF BECAUSE WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AS MUCH PARTICIPATION FROM EVERYBODY AS POSSIBLE. IN YOUR PACKAGE OR IN YOUR ENVELOPES YOU'LL FIND A CD. WHEN YOU TAKE IT HOME AND YOU OPEN IT UP YOU'LL FIND THERE WILL BE TWO-FOLDERS IN THERE. ONE IS ENTITLED PDF FILES AND THE OTHER ONE IS ENTITLED TEXT FILE. THE REASON FOR THIS IS THOSE WHO USE SCREEN READERS, HAVE A TREMENDOUS DIFFICULTY TRYING TO READ PDF FILES. IN MANY CASES IT WON'T WORK SO WE HAVE TRIED TO BE ACCOMMODATING AND TRIED TO TRANSLATE AS MANY OF THE PDF FILES INTO TEXT SO THAT EVERYONE GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE INFORMATION THAT IS THERE. WE HAVE PUT IN A LOT OF RESOURCE INFORMATION. WE HAVE GOT IN HERE FOR EXAMPLE THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS PAPER ON THE DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE. WE HAVE ALSO GOT IN HERE THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS PAPER ON THEIR CONSULTATIONS SESSIONS, PROPOSALS FOR STRENGTHENING THE ODA. A COUPLE OF DISCUSSION PAPERS THAT DAVID LEPOFSKY HAS SENT OUT OVER THE PAST SIX MONTHS OR SO. YOU'LL ALSO FIND IN HERE A COPY OF BILL 125, THE ODA ACT. NOW I DON'T KNOW IF MANY OF YOU WANT

TO TAKE THE CHANCE TO READ IT BUT I THINK YOU SHOULD BECAUSE WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT GOING FORWARD IN A STRENGTHENING THE ACCESS. THIS CD CONTAINS A COPY OF THAT. WE HAVE ALSO GOT IN HERE SOMETHING FROM THE CITY OF LONDON WHICH IS THE CITY'S FACILITY ACCESSIBILITY DESIGN STANDARDS. THESE ARE GUIDELINES FOR CITY OWNED FACILITIES, MOVING FORWARD WITH RESPECT TO MAKING THE MORE ACCESSIBLE FOR THE PEOPLE WITH ALL TYPES OF DISABILITIES. SO A WEALTH OF RESOURCE INFORMATION ON HERE AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL GET TO ENJOY AND GET A CHANCE TO READ WHAT WE HAVE GOT -- WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER. I WANT TO THANK THE CITY FOR BEING ONE OF THE SPONSORS AND MAKING THESE CDS AVAILABLE TO ALL OF US. TODAY'S SESSION IT ENTITLED "WHAT A STRENGTHENED ODA WILL DO FOR US. TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT IS BETTE JONES AND TO MY FAR LEFT IS PATTI BREGMAN. THE FORMAT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FOR THIS PARTICULAR SESSION AND I MAY FALL OVER MANY OF THE OTHERS IS THAT EACH OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS WILL GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU AND GIVE YOU THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE TOPIC AND THEN WE'RE ALSO GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR UP FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

WE WOULD ASK THAT WHEN YOU DO WANT TO ASK A QUESTION OR MAKE COMMENTS, THAT YOU INDICATE YOUR NAME, AND INDICATE WHERE YOU'RE FROM. WHETHER YOU'RE A ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE MEMBER, WHETHER YOU'RE A STAFF RESOURCE PERSON OR WHETHER YOU'RE A VOLUNTEER. GIVE US A SENSE OF WHO YOU ARE AND WE WELCOME YOU PARTICIPATING IN THESE DISCUSSIONS. WE ASK THAT YOU FOCUS ON THE TOPIC AT HAND. THERE WILL BE AN OPEN SESSION TOWARDS THE END OF THE AFTERNOON WHERE YOU GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING FORWARD YOUR THOUGHTS AND EXPRESSIONS ON ITEMS THAT PERHAPS WERE NOT DISCUSSED FULLY DURING THE DAY SO WE'LL ASK YOU TO RESERVE THOSE COMMENTS UNTIL THAT TIME. WE ASK YOU TO RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU CAN. WE HAVE SOMEBODY -- KATHLEEN I BELIEVE IS OUT THERE WITH A PORTABLE MICROPHONE AND SHE'LL COME AROUND AND GIVE IT TO YOU. AND WE WANT TO DO THAT SO THAT EVERYONE CAN HEAR WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HEAR FROM IT YOU RATHER THAN ME TRYING TO RECITE BACK TO OUR MEMBERS HERE AS TO WHAT THE GIST OF YOUR QUESTION WAS. AND ALSO WE HAVE GOT INTERPRETERS OVER ON OUR LEFT WHO ARE TRYING TO DO THEIR BEST TO RELAY BACK TO THOSE PEOPLE WHAT THE QUESTION HAS BEEN. SO THAT'S IT FOR MY HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS

AND LET'S GET ON TO THE SUBJECT HERE. AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE GOT TWO PANELISTS. PATTI AND BETTY HERE. BOTH HAVE BEEN ACTIVE CONCERNS PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. BETTE HERE IS CURRENTLY A MEMBER OF THE ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY OF WOODSTOCK AND PATTI IS A LAWYER. NO DISRESPECT BUT (LAUGHTER) WE ALL HAVE OUR JOKES ABOUT LAWYERS, AND I SHOULD SAY I AM AN ENGINEER. (LAUGHTER) SO WHERE THE MINISTER EARLIER ON TALKED ABOUT PROVIDING WASHROOMS FOR WOMEN, I KNOW WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE IN MY CLASS BACK IN THE EARLY 70S WE HAD ONE WOMAN THERE AND SHE WAS -- STAYED WITH US THROUGHOUT THE FIVE YEARS AND THIS WAS ONE OF HER COMPLAINTS THROUGHOUT THOSE YEARS THAT SHE HAD TO GO ELSEWHERE TO FIND A WOMAN'S WASHROOM SO I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE MINISTER OF REFERRING TO. AND SO I'M NOT GOING TO TALK A LOT MORE. I'M GOING TO PASS IT ON TO BETTE WHO WILL START FIRST AND MAYBE SHE'LL GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND ABOUT HERSELF AND SHE'LL THEN GO INTO HER PRESENTATION. BETTE.

BETTE JONES: GOOD MORNING. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK KATHY WHO HAS GIVEN ME THE PRIVILEGE TO SPEAK AT THIS SYMPOSIUM TO HORN MICHAEL LEWIS. I AM SURE HE IS UP THERE WITH TWO THUMBS UP THERE SAYING GO GET

THEM. WE ARE STILL WAITING. WE NEED A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE ODA THAT WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR SINCE BEFORE MIKE HARRIS WAS IN POWER. I BELIEVE THAT AWARENESS AND ATTITUDE CHANGES MUST BE OUR FIRST PRIORITY. BEFORE I WAS DIAGNOSED WITH MS, THE ONLY ATTITUDINAL BARRIER I KNEW WAS THAT WHICH I EXPERIENCED AS A COUNCILLOR FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY CHALLENGED. IF ANYONE HAD EVER TOLD ME THAT I WOULD BE IN A WHEELCHAIR AND FACE ALL THE BARRIERS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT I WOULD HAVE, I WOULD HAVE LAUGHED AND SAID "WHAT BARRIERS?" AWARENESS COULD BE OBTAINED THROUGH STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS SUCH AS GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS AND WOULD PROMOTE ATTITUDINAL CHANGE AND INCENTIVE TO IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY IN ONTARIO ESPECIALLY REGARDING EQUITY IN EMPLOYMENT. IF THIS WERE OBTAINED, MANY DISABLED PEOPLE COULD BE TAKEN OFF THE ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM GIVING THEM BACK INDEPENDENCE, DIGNITY AND SELF-WORTH. THIS WOULD ALSO ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT LARGE SAVINGS FROM THE ODSP. MONIES SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE PENSIONS THOSE ON ODSP EARNING MORE THAN $160. THOSE WHO WOULD FOR WHATEVER REASON MUST BE RETURNED TO ODSP SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR A LENGTHY TIME OR NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PENSION. PEOPLE LIVING ON ODSP ARE SURVIVING ON

A WAGE THAT IS WELL BELOW THE POVERTY LINE. A SUBSTANTIAL RAISE IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW THEM TO LIVE ABOVE THE POVERTY LINE. 5% IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DO THIS. I WILL SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ON STANDARDS. POLICIES AND STANDARDS SHOULD BE SET OUT BY THE PROVINCE TO INCLUDE THE PRIVATE SECTOR WITHIN TIME-FRAMES. THESE STANDARDS SHOULD BE ENFORCEABLE AND SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SIZE AND TYPE OF THE INDUSTRY. MANDATORY STANDARDS SHOULD PREFERABLY HAVE INCENTIVES BUT IF THESE ARE NOT COMPLIED WITH, THEN FINES AND PENALTIES SHOULD BE ENFORCED. ONE-THIRD OF OUR DOWNTOWN CORE IS NOT WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE BECAUSE OF STEPS. THIS SURVEY DID NOT TAKE IN THE DOORS THAT COULD NOT BE OPENED, THE AISLES THAT WE COULD NOT GET DOWN, THE DISPLAYS WE COULD NOT GET AROUND. ALSO NOT INCLUDED WERE DOCTORS, LAWYERS, DENTISTS, OPTOMETRISTS, ET CETERA. THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODES SHOULD CONTAIN A CHECKLIST THAT WOULD PROMPT ORGANIZATIONS AND PRIVATE SECTORS THAT WOULD OUTLINE STANDARDS, AND IDENTIFY ACCOMMODATION NEEDS AND WAYS TO REMOVE BARRIERS. HUMAN RIGHTS. MY EXPERIENCE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS WAS A LONG AND EXHAUSTING OCCURRENCE. THIS SHOULD -- THIS WOULD BE EXHAUSTING FOR ANY ABLE-BODIED PERSON, LET ALONE WITH A PERSON WITH MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS WHO

CANNOT DETERMINE FROM HOUR TO HOUR WHAT THEIR BODY WILL DICTATE DUE TO POSSIBLE MS EXASPERATIONS. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SETTLED IN MY FAVOR BEFORE LITIGATION I HAD TO ATTEND MANY MEDIATION MEETINGS. IT TOOK FROM 1998 TO JULY OF 2001 TO BE COMPLETED AND I UNDERSTAND THIS IS FAST IN COMPARISON TO OTHER CASES. THIS CAN ONLY BE APPLIED TO ONE CASE AND IT DOES NOT SET A PRECEDENT. IN HOUSING, THE PROVINCE SHOULD MANDATE THAT AN ADEQUATE PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC HOUSING IS OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN AND THAT MORE 24 HOURS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IS NEEDED. AT THIS POINT WE HAVE A LOW NUMBER OF THESE LODGINGS AND A VERY, VERY LONG WAITING LIST. WHEN OUR COMMUNITY GOT THE FIRST HOUSING OF THIS TYPE, IT WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT A 21 YEAR OLD WAS FORCED TO LIVE IN A NURSING HOME. WHEN I REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE HOUSING, THERE WAS NO SUCH THING ON THE MARKET, AND EVEN THOUGH WE OWNED OUR OWN HOME, WE NO LONGER NEEDED A POOL OR A SECOND STORY AND AS THE HOUSING -- AS OUR HOUSE WAS AN OLDER ONE WE CHOSE TO BUILD A HOME TO MEET MY NEEDS. AT THAT TIME THERE WAS NO READILY AVAILABLE DESIGN AND IT TOOK MUCH RESEARCH TO BUILD OUR HOME AS WAS NEEDED FOR ME. AS FAR AS I KNOW THERE ARE STILL NO UNIVERSAL DESIGN HOMES ON THE MARKET UNLESS THEY ARE ORDERED SPECIFICALLY.

HOME CARE. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS HOME CARE. IN THE PAST HOME CARE WORKERS WERE SENT INTO MY HOME WITHOUT CPR OR FIRST AID. IN A FIELD SUCH AS THIS IT IS EXTREMELY NECESSARY THAT THEY HAVE THESE QUALIFICATIONS. NOW THEY MUST HAVE THEM. I WAS DROPPED DURING A TRANSFER FROM A TOILET -- THAT DOES NOT SOUND GOOD -- AND ALTHOUGH I HAD A MECHANICAL HOYER LIFT, THE WORKER WAS NOT TRAINED TO USE IT. I SAT ON THE FLOOR FOR TWO AND ONE HALF HOURS AFTER SHE WAS TOLD TO CALL 911. IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY HAD SHE BEEN TRAINED. I CANNOT EVEN COUNT THE NUMBER OF WORKERS THAT HAVE BEEN IN MY HOME DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT GIVEN ENOUGH HOURS TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES AND THEY MUST WORK TWO JOBS, AND WHEN A FULL-TIME JOB COMES ALONG, THEY'RE GONE. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY TIMES WHEN I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET MY FULL-TIME, AS THERE IS NO WORKER AVAILABLE. A CONSUMER I KNOW USING AN ORGANIZATION THAT I WAS NOT USING WAS THREATENED TO HAVE HIS SERVICE DISCONTINUED IF HE DID NOT SIGN THEIR POLICY AGREEMENT. THIS HAS CAUSED TREMENDOUS WORRY TO BOTH HIM AND HIS WIFE. I HAVE FOUND THE POLICIES OF SOME ORGANIZATIONS ARE USED WHEN IT BENEFITS THEM AND NOT USED WHEN IT DOES

NOT. THE PAGER SYSTEM FROM THE ORGANIZATION THAT I DEAL WITH GOES OFF AT 6:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT AND COMES ON AT 6:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. UNFORTUNATELY MY MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS DOES NOT LEAVE AT 6:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT AND COME BACK AT 6:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. WHAT IS NEEDED IS MORE FUNDING, OPEN INFORMATION, AND HOW MONEY IS USED AND MORE INPUT FROM CONSUMERS INTO POLICY INFORMATION. IN SUMMARY I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT IF A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE ODA WAS PUT INTO EFFECT, THEN THE DOOR WOULD BE OPENED WIDE AND IT WOULD BE A WIN-WIN SITUATION FOR ALL AND I FOR ONE WOULD NO LONGER BE TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE GOOSE BUMPS ON MY FOREHEAD FROM BANGING INTO A BRICK WALL AND I WOULD NO LONGER STILL BE WAITING. THANK YOU.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BETTE. EARLIER ON WHEN I REFERRED TO PATTI AS A LAWYER, I REALIZE NOW THAT I JUST ABRUPTLY STOPPED. I DIDN'T GO BEYOND THAT. (LAUGHTER) PATTI IS A DIFFERENT LAWYER. SHE IS A LAWYER THAT IS ON OUR SIDE. (LAUGHTER). IN YOUR PACKAGE YOU'LL FIND QUITE A DETAILED BIOGRAPHY OF PATTI AND THE WORK THAT SHE HAS

BEEN DOING OVER THESE YEARS FOR THE ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMMITTEE. I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS DAVID THAT WROTE THESE LENGTHY AND YET INFORMATIVE E-MAILS. I HAVE SINCE LEARNED IT IS PROBABLY A COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM, PERHAPS OTHERS THAT HAVE PUT THEIR MINDS TOGETHER TO PROVIDE ALL THAT INFORMATION THAT WE DO GET A CHANCE TO READ. NOW PATTI, AS I SAID, HAS BEEN AN ACTIVE ADVISOR TO THE ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMMITTEE, BUT SHE SERVES THESE DAYS AS A CONSULTANT AND A LAWYER AND SPECIALIZES IN THESE DISABILITY ISSUES. PATTI, I TURN THE MICROPHONE OVER TO YOURSELF.

PATTI BREGMAN: THANK YOU. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE INVITATION TO BE HERE BECAUSE HAVING BEEN THE COUNCIL TO THE ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMMITTEE FOR ABOUT SIX YEARS DURING ITS FIRST FEW YEARS, TO ACTUALLY SEE THIS MANY PEOPLE IN THE ROOM WHO ARE INVOLVED AND ACTIVE AND ACCOMPLISHING THINGS IN THE COMMUNITY IS REALLY, REALLY EXCITING TO ME BECAUSE I JUST THINK WE HAVE COME SO FAR DESPITE NOT HAVING A GREAT LAW AND MAYBE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A GREAT LAW PEOPLE HAD TO GET TOGETHER TO FIGHT. JUST TO SORT OF FILL OUT MY BACKGROUND

A LITTLE BIT, I WAS AT ARCH FOR MANY YEARS. IT IS A LEGAL CLINIC THAT DOES DISABILITY RIGHTS ISSUES AND THEN SPENT SOME TIME WITH THE CANADIAN MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION TRYING TO REALLY TAKE DISABILITY TO THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMUNITY AND VICE VERSA. THE OTHER PIECE, AS YOU KNOW, I'M ACTUALLY ONE OF YOU BECAUSE I ALSO HAVE AN INVISIBLE DISABILITY. I HAVE AN INFLAMMATORY DISEASE DURING MOST OF LAW SCHOOL MEANT I WAS IN THE HOSPITAL FOR A GOOD DEAL OF TIME AND SURPRISINGLY BECAUSE IT WAS PRE-ODA, PRE-HUMAN RIGHTS FOR THE MOST PART, PRE-CHARTER I HAD PHENOMENAL ACCOMMODATION. THEY'D BRING THE CLASS TO THE HOSPITAL. THEY LET ME WRITE EXAMS THERE. I WAS ONE OF THE LUCKY ONES IN THE EARLY DAYS BUT I SHOULD ALSO TELL YOU WHY I'M HERE AND WHY I KEEP FIGHTING FOR AN ODA, I HAVE ALSO EXPERIENCED THE SAME DISCRIMINATION MANY OF YOU DO. YOU MIGHT THINK WHO WOULD CHALLENGE A LAWYER WHO DOES THIS AS A LIVING? WELL, I HAVE ASKED FOR ACCOMMODATION FOR SIMPLE THINGS LIKE HAVING SOMEBODY TO HELP ME TYPE AND WAS TOLD THAT THAT WOULD BE DOING MY JOB FOR ME AND SO IT WOULDN'T BE AVAILABLE TO ME. SO I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH AND I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS. I HAVE ALSO DONE A LOT OF WORK IN THE

AREA OF MENTAL HEALTH BECAUSE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BARRIERS, I THINK AS THE MINISTER SAID, WE NEED TO INCLUDE EVERYBODY AND THE QUESTION EVERYBODY ASKS IS "HOW DO YOU ACCOMMODATE SOMEBODY WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS? I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH CITIZENSHIP TO DEVELOP SOME TRAINING ON THAT SO TO THINK ABOUT -- WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT AN EFFECTIVE ODA CAN DO, I THINK BETTE SET THE PERFECT STAGE BECAUSE SHE IDENTIFIED THE BARRIERS THAT WE DON'T ALWAYS THINK ABOUT WHICH AREN'T JUST THE RAMPS, BUT THEY'RE THE POLICIES, THEY'RE THE PROGRAMS, THE ATTITUDES. LEGISLATION CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IT'S NOT THE FINAL STEP AND THAT'S WHY I'M SO GLAD TO SEE SO MANY PEOPLE HERE FIGHTING BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO MAKE THE ODA WORK. WE CAN GET A GREAT LAW BUT WITHOUT YOUR PARTICIPATION AND MOVING IT FORWARD, THAT'S ALL IT WILL BE AND I THINK WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT INCLUDE IN TERMS OF INVISIBLE DISABILITIES ASIDE FROM THE VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT'S PART OF IT AND THAT ATTITUDINAL BARRIERS ARE A HUGE PART OF WHAT MAKES PEOPLE HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME. I MEAN PEOPLE DON'T DISCLOSE MENTAL ILLNESS. WE HAVE A PREVALENT OF ONE IN FIVE PEOPLE IN THIS PROVINCE HAVE SOME FORM OF A MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM AND MY GUESS IS YOU'LL NEVER HEAR ABOUT IT. I HEAR ABOUT IT BECAUSE I DO

A LOT OF SEMINARS IN BUSINESS. A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE, WHEN I'M DONE WITH THE TRAINING, FIVE OF THEM WILL COME OVER TO ME AND TALK TO ME ABOUT THEIR WIFE, SISTER, THEMSELVES OR WHOEVER AFRAID TO BRING IT UP IN A GROUP. LEGISLATION ITSELF CANNOT INCLUDE A CLAUSE THAT SAYS "GET BETTER AT IT." WHAT I THINK IT CAN DO IS SET AN ENVIRONMENT WHICH PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THINKING ABOUT ACCOMMODATION ISN'T THE LAST THING YOU DO. IT'S THE FIRST. THAT AS THE MINISTER SAID BECOMES AN INTEGRAL TO OUR THINKING AS WE WOULD ABOUT WOMEN'S WASHROOMS, WE THINK ABOUT INCLUSIVE WASHROOMS. IN THINKING ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO FOR ACCOMMODATION CONFERENCES IS A QUIET ROOM. SOMEBODY MIGHT FEEL OVERSTIMULATED. HAVE AN EXTRA ROOM THAT YOU PUT ASIDE AND AGAIN THINKING ABOUT IN THE LONG TERM MAKING IT UNIVERSAL FOR EVERYBODY. WHEN I WAS ORGANIZING CONFERENCES WE TURNED IT INTO A RELAXATION ROOM AND WE OFFERED MASSAGES AND QUIET MUSIC AND CANDLES. IT WAS A CONFERENCE AND NOT JUST PEOPLE WITH A MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM. I ALSO THINK IT NEEDS TO SET SOME PARAMETERS AS TO WHAT WE MEAN BY ACCOMMODATION FOR PEOPLE WITH INVISIBLE DISABILITIES. SO, IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE HAVE SOME IDEA OF WHAT TO DO BUT ALSO WE NEED TO PROVIDE AND SUPPORT A SUCCESSFUL

LEGISLATION THE RESOURCES THAT EMPLOYERS AND OTHERS CAN GO TO GET THE HELP THAT THEY NEED IN FINDING OUT HOW YOU ACTUALLY MAKE IT HAPPEN. THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES -- I THINK ITS BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM ENSURE THAT THEY INVOLVE ALL DISABILITIES. SOME DO. SOME DON'T. BUT AGAIN TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS FULLY INCLUSIVE TO EVERYBODY. I THINK THE OTHER THING THE ODA WILL DO IS BY SETTING A COMPLIANCE THAT'S NOT DEPENDENT ON INDIVIDUALS GOING AND ALWAYS ASKING FOR ACCOMMODATION, BY SAYING YOU AS AN EMPLOYER, YOU AS A HOUSING PROVIDER, YOU AS A COMMUNITY IN PLANNING NEED TO THINK ABOUT ALL DISABILITIES MEANS THAT YOU DON'T WORRY ABOUT DISCLOSING IF YOU HAVE A MENTAL ILLNESS BECAUSE IT WILL BE DONE FOR YOU. THAT THEY WILL THINK ABOUT WHEN THEY'RE DESIGNING OFFICE SPACE, AND IF SOMEBODY ASKS FOR AN OFFICE THAT HAS A CLOSED DOOR, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A BIG DEAL BECAUSE THAT CAN BE AN ACCEPTED PART OF IT, SO WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE CAN FRAME THE LEGISLATION, AND I'M SURE A LOT OF YOU HAVE A LOT OF IDEAS HOW TO DO IT SO THAT EMPLOYERS WILL KNOW TO DO IT. THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE ODA, IT IS NO LONGER GOING TO BE A SINGLE PERSON COMPLAINING WHICH BETTE SO APTLY DESCRIBED IS VERY DIFFICULT AND BELIEVE ME

IF YOU'RE WORKING FOR SOMEBODY, IT'S THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO DO IS GO TO YOUR EMPLOYER AND SAY, "I'M TAKING YOU TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.", BECAUSE I GUARANTEE YOU THEY WILL NOT BE A VERY HAPPY EMPLOYER AT THE END OF THE DAY. NO MATTER HOW GOOD IT TALKS ABOUT REPRISALS, IT'S A HARD THING TO DO. SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT LEGISLATION THAT WILL CREATE THE ENVIRONMENTS THAT EVERYBODY CAN FEEL PART OF. INVISIBLE DISABILITIES LIKE MINE, INFLAMMATORY DISEASE, I NEED TO RUN AN IV AT WORK. I NEED TO KNOW THERE IS A REFRIGERATOR THERE. I TAKE MY LITTLE IV BAG THERE. PRETTY EASY ACCOMMODATION. MOST OFFICES HAVE A REFRIGERATOR. I DON'T ALWAYS LIKE TO ASK. SO YOU WANT EMPLOYERS TO START TO OFFER AND I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME CONCRETE EXAMPLES THAT SORT OF IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT OF HOW THIS MIGHT WORK BECAUSE I THINK IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE HOW LEGISLATION CAN MAKE THESE ATTITUDINAL CHANGES. AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WE HAVE EMPLOYMENT ACCOUNT ACT AND THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT WORKS NOT ON COMPLAINTS BUT ON SETTING CERTAIN STANDARDS AND ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYERS WHICH INCLUDE THE BANKS HAVE TO DO REPORTS THAT TALK ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES THEY HAVE ON THEIR STAFF, AND AS A RESULT OF A HUMAN RIGHTS SETTLEMENT I WAS INVOLVED IN, ARCH AND AT CMHA (PHOEN) WE SETTLED WITH A COUPLE OF BANKS. WHAT THEY

SAID TO US AT THE TIME, "WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.", SO OUR SETTLEMENT WAS WE WOULD SPEND THREE YEARS AT THE TABLE WITH SENIOR EXECUTIVES IN THESE BANKS TO HELP MAKE THEM CHANGE. IT WAS A REALLY GOOD EDUCATION FOR ME AS WELL AS FOR THEM BECAUSE WHAT IT SHOWED IS WHEN YOU CAN SIT AT THAT TABLE -- WE WOULDN'T BE THERE WITHOUT THE LEGISLATION SO THE LEGISLATION IS ABSOLUTELY A CRITICAL PIECE, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WE DIDN'T KEEP GOING BACK TO THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT. WE SAT DOWN WITH THE BANKS. "WHAT'S IT GOING TO TAKE?" "WHAT CAN YOU DO?" THEY APPROACHED IT VERY DIFFERENTLY BUT CIBC, FOR EXAMPLE, SET UP SCHOLARSHIPS. ONE OF THE BARRIERS IS STUDENTS CAN'T GET THE EDUCATION THEY NEED - STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES SO THEY SET UP GREAT SCHOLARSHIPS AND HELD A BIG RECEPTION AT THE TOP OF THE CIBC. THE THIRD YEAR OF THE SCHOLARSHIPS WERE GIVING JOBS TO THESE PEOPLE ON-THE-SPOT, BUT I THINK WHAT WAS MORE IMPRESSIVE TO ME WAS THAT JOHN HUNKIN, THE CEO OF THE BANK, HAS AS ONE OF HIS PERFORMANCE MEASURES NOW HIRING QUOTAS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT TEN YEARS AGO THAT A BANK PRESIDENT WOULD SAY ONE OF THE THINGS HE WILL MEASURE HIS SUCCESS ON IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE MEETING THAT WITH QUOTA?

HE ALSO DID SENSITIVITY TRAINING OF HIMSELF, ALL OF HIS DIRECT REPORTS, AND ALL OF THEIR DIRECT REPORTS SO ALL OF THIS DIDN'T COME FROM A LEGISLATION AS TO THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO. IT DID COME FROM LEGISLATION THAT YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT DOING ENOUGH AND I THINK THAT'S THE KIND OF ODA THAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT. ONE THAT SETS THE FRAMEWORK THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT THEY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. THEY KNOW IT NEEDS TO BE INCLUSIVE. GIVES US THE FLEXIBILITY TO GO IN AND MAKE THE SOLUTION ADAPTABLE AND WORK FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WE'RE IN AND THAT WILL TAKE ALL OF US TO COME AND MAKE IT HAPPEN BUT IT CAN WORK. IT WILL TAKE TIME BUT I REALLY TRULY BELIEVE THAT WE'RE REALLY, REALLY, REALLY CLOSE SO I KIND OF LOOK FORWARD HEARING WHAT YOU ALSO THINK SHOULD BE INCLUDED BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GET AS MANY PERSPECTIVES AS POSSIBLE.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PATTI. (APPLAUSE). I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ABOUT 35 MINUTES OR SO LEFT FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS AND SUCH. AS I INDICATED EARLIER, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO RAISE YOUR HAND. I SHOULD LET YOU KNOW ALSO THAT I'M

VISUALLY IMPAIRED. I WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE WHO IT IS WHO HAS THEIR HAND UP FIRST. MY WIFE IS GOING TO COME UP HERE AND ASSIST ME WITH THAT AND WE'LL TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO YOURSELVES AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU. WHO IS GOING TO BE FIRST? ONE IN THE BACK.

>> IT'S SHIRLEY... (INAUDIBLE)... TALKING. AT ONE TIME THERE WAS A LAW IN ONTARIO FOR EMPLOYMENT EQUITY. I WONDER IF THAT CAN BE BROUGHT BACK BECAUSE THE HARRIS GOVERNMENT WHEN THEY CAME IN IMMEDIATELY REVERSED IT AND THAT WAS BROUGHT IN WITH COOPERATION FROM LABOR AND DAVID SAT ON THAT COMMITTEE AND SO ARCH WAS VERY MUCH INVOLVED AND I WONDER IF WE CAN HAVE A LAW ABOUT EMPLOYMENT EQUITY PROVINCIALLY AGAIN?

PATTI BREGMAN: WE CERTAINLY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT AND WHAT IT HAD IN IT AND DRAWING THE GOOD PARTS INTO WHATEVER ODA WE HAVE. YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THAT -- THE IRONY OF IT. I HAVE A LONG MEMORY OF THESE THINGS, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THE CONSERVATIVES GOT RID OF -- THE TWO LAWS THEY GOT RID OF TWO AFFECTING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES -- THE ADVOCACY ACT AND THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY. TONY ... (INAUDIBLE), NOT ONLY ARE WE GETTING RID OF EMPLOYMENT EQUITY, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE YOU TEAR UP YOUR PLANS THAT THEY DO -- EMPLOYMENT EQUITY PLANS -- BECAUSE YOU WILL NEVER NEED TO USE THEM

AGAIN. THE ODA THEY INTRODUCED PUT THOSE PLANS RIGHT BACK IN PLACE SO ALL OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE, GONE, DESTROYED. SO THAT'S ACTUALLY A VERY GOOD IDEA.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: NEXT.

>> IN 1981 THE ONTARIO -- MY QUESTION IS IN 1981 THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CREATED THE LAW THAT YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. IN 2001 THE NEW LAW THE ONTARIANS DISABILITIES ACT WAS PRETTY MUCH ENFORCEABLE SAID THE SAME THING. WHY DO WE NEED TWO LAWS THAT PRETTY MUCH SAY THE SAME THING WHEN IN MANY PEOPLE'S VIEWS BOTH OF THE LAWS THEMSELVES ARE DISCRIMINATORY? UNFORTUNATELY THE ODA -- IN 1918 IF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION LAW WAS PROPERLY ENACTED AND ENFORCED, WE WOULDN'T NEED THE ODA.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: INTERESTING QUESTION. PATTI, PERHAPS I COULD ASK YOU TO JUST PERHAPS ELABORATE ON THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND WHETHER HOLD LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY? THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE ODA.

PATTI BREGMAN: IT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION AND LEGITIMATE QUESTION TO ASK. THERE WAS A LOT

OF HOPE WHEN THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE WAS AMENDED TO INCLUDE DISABILITIES. I THINK WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS AND WHERE THE CODE -- SOME THINGS HAVE WORKED. THERE ARE SOME SUCCESSES UNDER THE CODE. THE REAL DIFFERENCE IS WHEN WE LOOK AT ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINING. IT IS ABOUT CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH PEOPLE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN STANDARDS THAT ARE UNIVERSAL. SO, IN OTHER WORDS, IT WOULD SAY AS IT CURRENTLY DOES, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU NEED AN ACCESSIBILITY PLAN AND SO THERE IS A WHOLE PLANNING PROCESS THAT GOES ON. HERE ARE ALL OF THE BARRIERS WE HAVE IDENTIFIED. SO UNLIKE THE CODE, YOU AS AN EMPLOYEE WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO AND SAY, "I NEED THIS ACCOMMODATION." THE IDEA IS TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE IT'S A SOLUTION FOR ALL. NOT EACH ONE AT A TIME. WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE IS BETTE CAN GO TO THE COMMISSION, AND UNLESS THERE IS A DECISION THAT HAS PRECEDENTIAL VALUE, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO EVERYONE. EVEN IF IT DOES, THAT MAY HAVE APPLIED TO HER, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. NOW YOU HAVE TO TAKE ME TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. IT IS A PROCESS IN WHICH YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL ARE REALLY ON THE LINE AND IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO DO. THE CONCEPT OF THE ODA AND IF IT'S GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE, IT WILL HAVE TO WORK THIS

WAY, IS THAT IT CREATES AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE EMPLOYERS WILL LOOK AT IT OR HOUSING -- THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO. A MONITORING BODY OR ENFORCING BODY, IF THEY DON'T DO IT DEALS WITH THEM SO THAT YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL, DON'T ALWAYS HAVE TO BE ON THE SPOT AND PUTTING YOURSELF IN THE FOREFRONT AND REALLY RISKING A LOT OF DISCRIMINATION JUST BY PUTTING IN THE COMPLAINT. THAT'S THE GOAL. I THINK THAT'S WHY THE ENFORCEABILITY PART OF THE ODA THAT PEOPLE WILL TALK ABOUT THIS AFTERNOON IS SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE NEEDS TO BE WAYS THAT IT CAN BE ENFORCED THAT DON'T DEPEND ON SOMEBODY SAYING THEY'RE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ME SPECIFICALLY. SO IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME WORK. I THINK YOU SHOULD KEEP ASKING THAT QUESTION AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT DOES HAPPEN.

>> IF I MAY, I JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO A FURTHER PART OF IT. WHY DO WE -- PEOPLE -- WHY DO WE PEOPLE IN ONTARIO WITH ALL DIFFERENT BOTH VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE DISABILITIES -- WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO FEEL AS IF WE ARE SECOND CLASS CITIZENS? WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO FEEL THAT WE ARE BEING SHOVED UNDER THE RUG SO THAT OTHER PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE DISABILITIES DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH US?

PATTI BREGMAN: WELL I MEAN -- YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. UNFORTUNATELY IT'S THE REALITY OF THE MOMENT THAT IT'S THERE AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO

DO IS FIND A WAY TO DEAL WITH IT AND THAT'S WHY THE EDUCATION AWARENESS BECOMES SO IMPORTANT AND IT'S -- THE LAW WILL BE A STARTING POINT BUT YOU KNOW IN TALKING TO PEOPLE LAST NIGHT FROM SOME OF THE AACS, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PROGRESS MADE WHERE THERE ARE FUNCTIONAL ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEES. BROUGHT TOGETHER PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE DISABILITIES AND IT'S ABOUT THE EDUCATION. I GREW UP IN THE STATES AND I HAD A GRANDFATHER WHO USED A WHEELCHAIR BACK WHEN ACCESSIBILITY WAS NOTHING AND A FATHER WHO WAS IN VOCATIONAL REHAB WHEN IT WAS THE EARLY DAYS. I REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS LIKE BECAUSE YOU COULD GO NOWHERE WITH MY GRANDFATHER IN A WHEELCHAIR. IF YOU WANTED TO GO ON A PLANE, HE WAS ON A CARGO LIFT. THINGS HAVE CHANGED. AS WE SEE THE YOUNGER CHILDREN GROWING UP IN INTEGRATED SCHOOLS I THINK IT WILL HAPPEN LESS AND LESS. PART OF IT IS ABOUT INTERACTION. AS LONG AS WE HAVE BARRIERS THAT KEEP PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES WHO ARE INTERACTING WITH PEOPLE IN THE BROADER SECTORS, WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE THAT DISCRIMINATION, AND SO I THINK A LOT OF THE LEGISLATION IS ABOUT TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO EDUCATE PEOPLE, INFORM THEM, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY DO WHAT I THINK THE AACS HAVE DONE IS TO BRING PEOPLE INTO THE SAME ROOM TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS, AND IT'S ONLY THEN I THINK THAT WE WILL BEGIN TO GET THE

ATTITUDINAL CHANGES. YOU'RE RIGHT. ULTIMATELY WE SHOULDN'T NEED A SPECIAL LAW. THIS IS JUST SO AUTOMATIC. WE'RE DEALING WITH THE REALITY THAT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING. THE ONLY THING THAT SEEMS TO WORK -- I DO A LOT OF INTERNATIONAL WORK. THIS IS COMMON ACROSS EUROPE. EUROPE IS NOW INTRODUCING LEGISLATION. YOU NEED A LITTLE BIT OF A STICK BEFORE PEOPLE WILL GO, AND ONCE THEY GET INTO IT, YOU'LL FIND THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE OPPONENTS ARE NOW GOING TO BECOME YOUR BIGGEST ALLIES WHEN THEY REALIZE WHAT IT'S LIKE. I CAN'T COUNT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO SAID, "WELL, IT WASN'T UNTIL I HAD AN EMPLOYEE WITH A DISABILITY WHO COULDN'T COME TO THE OFFICE PARTY BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T GET TRANSPORTATION THAT I REALIZED WHAT THEY WERE FACING EVERY DAY.", AND THAT'S WHAT REALLY IS GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: IF I CAN JUST ADD TO THAT IF YOU DON'T MIND. I GUESS MY TAKE ON THIS WOULD BE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE LIVING IN A PERFECT WORLD AND PERFECT SOCIETY THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR AN ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. WE WOULD ALL BE TREATED EQUALLY, WE WOULD ALL BE TREATED FAIRLY, ALL BE GIVEN EQUAL ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES AND BE ALLOWED TO MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS

BUT THE REALITY, AS PATTI MENTIONS, WE'RE NOT LIVING IN A PERFECT WORLD OR A PERFECT SOCIETY. THERE ARE CHALLENGES OUT THERE AND THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS AND LEGISLATION IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THOSE GRIPES THAT WE -- DESERVE ARE GRANTED TO US. WE HAVE THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS THAT SAYS WE ARE ALL TO BE TREATED FAIRLY WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION. UNFORTUNATELY WHAT WE GET DOWN TO, LET'S SAY, THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL IT'S DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT AND WE NEED PEOPLE LIKE PATTI AND DAVID AND OTHERS WHO ADVOCATE ON OUR BEHALF TO THOSE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, LEGISLATURES, ET CETERA, THAT THEY WILL LISTEN AND BE BETTER INFORMED SO AS THEY MOVE AHEAD THEY CAN BRING FORWARD TO THE APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION THAT IS GOING TO PROVIDE EQUALITY FOR EVERYBODY WITHIN OUR COMMUNITIES. I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE FLOOR. KATHLEEN, WHO IS NEXT?

>> MY NAME IS BRENT LUCAS. ... (INAUDIBLE). I HAVE AN OPEN-ENDED QUESTION FOR THE PANEL. BACK IN MARCH OR APRIL, OR WHATEVER MONTH IT WAS THE LIBERALS CAME INTO POWER, ONE OF THE VERY FIRST THINGS THEY DISCUSSED IS WE'LL GET A 3% INCREASE -- 3% OF 930 IS ABOUT 27.50 I WOULD THINK. I WAS TOLD BY THE LOCAL ODSP OFFICE IN

LONDON THAT WE WOULD SEE A $100 RETROACTIVE AS OF SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR; 100 BUCKS AT THE END OF NOVEMBER, MARCH NEXT YEAR UNTIL ... (INAUDIBLE) ... TO IMPLEMENT THIS HUGE PRODUCT. MY QUESTION IS DO WE NOT DESERVE SOME FORM OF LETTER IN OUR MONTHLY STATEMENT WE GOT IN SEPTEMBER TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO ADJUST THIS HERE ANOTHER MONTH OR TWO ON THIS? DO WE NOT DESERVE SOME KIND OF NOTIFICATION ABOUT THIS? TO ME IT'S A CLASSIC SITUATION. THEY MADE US A PROMISE, WE HAVE HEARD NOTHING, AND I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT IF SOME PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM -- SOME OF THE DIGNITARIES WHO HAVE CONNECTION WITH THE SYSTEM -- ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM. I NEVER WAS CONCERNED ABOUT FIVE BUCKS ALL MY LIFE. I HAVE BEEN VERY SELF-SUFFICIENT ALL MY LIFE. A GOVERNMENT PENSION OF 930 PER MONTH. FIVE BUCKS TO ME IS A JOKE! THANK YOU.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

PATTI BREGMAN: ONE SUGGESTION TO YOU -- YOU HAPPEN IN LONDON TO HAVE THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANT TO THE MINISTER OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES -- ... (INAUDIBLE) MATTHEWS. SHE ACTUALLY HAS GOT SOME POWER RIGHT WITHIN THE MINISTRY THAT IS WRITING THE CHEQUES AND TELL HER EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

>> WHY SHOULD A PERSON LIKE ME IN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE HAVE TO GO TO HER WHO I VOTED IN POWER TO TELL HER WHAT A PROBLEM THAT IS NOT BEING DONE? SHOULDN'T SHE DO THAT ANYWAYS? THAT'S PART OF HER JOB.

PATTI BREGMAN: SHE SHOULD.

>> THAT'S WHY WE'RE PAYING HER, RIGHT?

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

>> YEAH.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: KATHLEEN.

>> HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES IS -- I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY JOB. THEY'RE VERY ACCOMMODATING. I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT AND A LOT OF IT IS IGNORANCE AND IT TAKES A LOT OF COURAGE TO FILE A HUMAN RIGHTS CASE AND THEN IT TAKES A LOT OF FORTITUDE TO HANG ON AND DEAL WITH ALL THE STUFF THAT COMES WITH IT AND THAT'S THE LAST THING THAT ANY ONE OF US WANTS TO DO. IN 2004 SOME OF THIS STUFF SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING.

PATTI BREGMAN: YOU'RE RIGHT.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: OKAY.

>> I'M FROM HAMILTON. I REPRESENT THE DISABILITY ACTION NETWORKING GROUP WHICH IS A NEW GROUP IN HAMILTON. I'M VICE-CHAIR OF THE ACCESSIBILITY

ADVISORY IN THE CITY OF OTTAWA AND I HAD SOME INPUT TO THE ORIGINAL ODA HOPEFULLY. UNFORTUNATELY IT DIDN'T TURN OUT THE WAY WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS ANYWAY THAT WE HAVE COME FORWARD WITH -- I SAT IN ON THE TASK FORCE THAT PREPARED THE CITY OF OTTAWA ACCESSIBILITY PLAN, AND IT WAS VERY INTERESTING TO SEE ALL OF THE CHIEFS OF THE CITY OF OTTAWA SITTING IN A MEETING TALKING ABOUT DISABILITY ISSUES. IT REALLY WAS AN ENLIGHTENING EXPERIENCE. AND IF NOTHING ELSE, I THINK THE ODA PROMPTED THAT KIND OF THING TO HAPPEN SO HOPEFULLY AS WE IMPROVE IT, IT WILL INCREASE THE AWARENESS OF THOSE PEOPLE IN POWER WHICH IS REALLY WHO WE HAVE GOT TO TOUCH TO MAKE THEM AWARE OF WHAT'S NEEDED TO BE DONE NOW. THANK YOU.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: I COULDN'T --(APPLAUSE).

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: I CAN, I CAN -- I CLEARLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WE KEEP SAYING THAT THE ODA ACT IS WEAK BUT YET ONE OF THE STRONG POINTS WITHIN THE ACT OR ONE OF THE GOOD POINTS WITHIN THE ACT WAS THAT IT REQUIRED OR IT MANDATED MUNICIPALITIES WITH 10,000 PERSONS OR MORE TO CREATE THESE ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES. AND I KNOW THAT WITHIN THESE COMMITTEES WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES, BUT THE

IMPORTANT THING WAS THAT IT GAVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING FORWARD OUR SUGGESTION, OUR IDEAS FOR IMPROVING OUR LIVES WITHIN THAT MUNICIPALITY SO THE ODA ACT DID HAVE ONE REALLY GOOD BENEFIT IN THAT IT PROVIDED US A MECHANISM TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO OUR COUNSELORS AND MAYORS AND MAKE THEM AWARE OF OUR REQUIREMENTS OR OUR LIVING WITHIN THAT MUNICIPALITY. AS WE MOVE AHEAD AND WE WANT TO SEE A STRENGTHENED ODA, WE WANT TO GO BEYOND THAT. WE WANT TO SEE EQUALITY SPREAD MUCH MORE BROADER THAN WHAT IT HAS BEEN DONE AT THE PRESENT TIME, AND AS AAC MEMBERS WE HAVE GIVEN THAT OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. WHERE THE ODA WOULD -- WHERE STRENGTHENING THE ODA WOULD GREATLY BENEFIT US, IT WOULD MANDATE COUNCIL AND OTHER BODIES TO ACT UPON THE SUGGESTION THAT WE DO COME FORWARD WITH. RIGHT NOW WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AND OUR LEGISLATION AUTHORITIES GET TO REVIEW THEM AND DECIDE WHETHER THEY DO WANT TO MOVE FORWARD IN SUCH WITH THEM. SO PERHAPS WITH A STRENGTHENED ODA, THIS REQUIREMENT THAT OUR LEGISLATION WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ENACT WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING MIGHT BRING CHANGE A LOT QUICKER THAN OTHERWISE. NEXT.

>> THANK YOU. IN THE ISSUES -- SOMEBODY BROUGHT UP

THE ISSUE ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE REASON WHY THERE HAVE BEEN NO LESS ATTENTION GIVEN TO THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT IT TAKES FROM FILING AND PRESENTING TO HEARING AND RESOLUTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINTS BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL IN ONTARIO? MAY I HAVE A COMMENT PLEASE?

PATTI BREGMAN: I'M NOT SURE -- I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT. I THINK THERE IS ATTENTION BEING FOCUSSED ON IT. WHAT HAPPENS SEEMS TO BE CYCLICAL BUT I THINK IT IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE RAISING. IT IS A BARRIER IF YOU HAVE GOT A PROCESS THAT TAKES TOO LONG TO HAPPEN AND --

>> IT IS NOT CYCLICAL. IT IS BUILT INTO THE SYSTEM.

PATTI BREGMAN: NO, NO, NO. WHAT I'M SAYING IT IS CYCLICAL THAT PEOPLE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. I AGREE WITH YOU THE PROBLEM HAS REMAINED AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE RAISED AS WE DISCUSS THE ODA AS ANOTHER FORM OF A BARRIER.

>> IT IS A BARRIER.

PATTI BREGMAN: ABSOLUTELY.

>> WHY IS IT NOT BEING IDENTIFIED IN THIS ODA MANDATE AND BEING ADDRESSED?

PATTI BREGMAN: I THINK IT CAN BE. THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF TODAY IS TO RAISE THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES

AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THE LEGISLATION IS INTRODUCED, PEOPLE ARE GOING FORWARD TO THE GOVERNMENT AND SAYING IT NEEDS TO INCLUDE THIS, THIS AND THIS, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE ON THAT LIST.

>> THANK YOU.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: MAYBE I COULD ASK PATTI A QUESTION. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PIECES OF LEGISLATION OUT THERE. WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO INCORPORATE THESE INTO ONE? FOR EXAMPLE, THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, THE ODA, AND PERHAPS THERE ARE OTHERS OUT THERE AS WELL TO TRY AND COMBINE THEM UNDER ONE SO IT BECOMES A RESPONSIBILITY OF ONE AUTHORITY AS OPPOSED TO BEING STAGMENTED AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.

PATTI BREGMAN: I THINK IT'S A DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE I THINK BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AND THE ODA IN TERMS OF ITS APPROACH BECAUSE ONE IS COMPLAINTS SPACE, THE OTHERS IS NOT, BUT WHETHER OR NOT THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION HAS A ROLE IN THE ODA I THINK IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION BUT, AGAIN, SUBJECT TO ISSUES ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF IT. I THINK THERE IS ALSO A NEED TO HAVE

DISCUSSION HOW THE BUILDING CODE FITS IN, HOW OTHER CODES FITS IN BECAUSE ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS CERTAINLY I HAVE HEARD FROM BUILDERS AND MUNICIPALITIES IS WE DON'T WANT THREE DIFFERENT PLACES TO HAVE TO GO, BUT I THINK IT'S A DISCUSSION THAT HAS TO HAPPEN. I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER BUT I THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION.

>> MY NAME IS MARY-ANN HARP (PHOEN) AND I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF CHARING THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND I HAVE THE DISTINCTION OF BEING A WOMAN WITH A DISABILITY. JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS I WANT TO MAKE AND I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT AROUND STANDARDS -- HOW VERY IMPORTANT STANDARDS ARE -- ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS ARE. IT'S FINE AND DANDY EVEN FOR HEADS OF CORPORATIONS TO BE VERY KEENLY AWARE OF THE ISSUE OF SENSITIVITIES TO THOSE OF US WITH DISABILITIES. HOWEVER, IT NEEDS TO TRANSLATE INTO WHEN I GO INTO A COFFEE SHOP. I HAVE THE DISTINCTION OF A PERSON WITH LOW VISION. HOW MUCH IS SOMETHING OR WHAT DO YOU HAVE AND I GET A POINT. SOMEONE POINTS THINKING -- IT'S BACK THERE OR FEELING THAT I GO INTO ANOTHER STORE OR A BANK, IF THEY SHOUT LOUD ENOUGH I'LL BE ABLE TO SEE IT. (LAUGHTER) THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT NOT ONLY THEIR SUPERVISOR OR WHATEVER UNDERSTANDS THIS VERY COMPLEX ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN

EASY ISSUE BUT ALSO THE PERSON ON THE COUNTER UNDERSTANDS THAT AS WELL, AND THAT'S A WHOLE ISSUE OF ACCESS TO US ALL SO THAT SERVICES AND THINGS THAT WE NEED WHETHER WE'RE LIVING IN OTHER PARTS OF ONTARIO, OR LIVING IN TORONTO, OTTAWA OR WHEREVER, THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT EQUAL PLAYING FIELD AND THAT'S BASICALLY ALL -- I THINK THAT ALL OF US ARE LOOKING FOR AND ASKING FOR. AND, FINALLY, THE OTHER ISSUE IS AROUND THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND IT IS -- I DO A LOT OF ADVOCACY FROM -- AROUND THE ISSUE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND HARASSMENT. IT'S SO CLOGGED WITH SO MANY DIFFERENT COMPLAINTS. I REALIZE THIS AFTERNOON WE'LL BE SPEAKING ABOUT THAT BUT THE COMMISSION IS NOT --THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF SEPARATE MECHANISM TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. NOT THE COMMISSION IS NOT THE END ALL, BE ALL FOR ALL OF US. WE ALSO THOUGH NEED TO LOOK AT WITH THE GOVERNMENT. IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE PRIVATE SECTOR ON SIDE AND KNOWLEDGEABLE BUT ALSO THE PUBLIC SECTOR AS WELL SO THAT AS A PERSON WAS SAYING ABOUT THE ODSP CHEQUE OR INFORMATION FOR ODSP PROGRAM, THAT BE IN AN ACCESSIBLE FORMAT RIGHT NOW. I KNOW FOR INDIVIDUALS IT IS DIFFICULT TO GET. SO IT SHOULD NOT BE JUST DO AS I SAY TYPE OF THING. IT HAS TO BE ACROSS THE BOARD. ALSO I JUST WANT TO SAY LOOK AT

INTERSECTIONALITY. WHEN WE ARE MARGINALIZED, ARE WE MARGINALIZED BECAUSE WE ARE PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, BECAUSE WE ARE WOMEN, BECAUSE WE LIVE IN RURAL AREAS, BECAUSE WE ARE PEOPLE WITH COLOUR? IT'S ALL INTERTWINED LIKE BRAIDING SO THAT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT. SOME TIMES WE THINK WE HAVE A ONE THING WILL FIT EVERYONE AND THAT WILL BE THE END ALL BE ALL FOR EVERYONE. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. I THANK EVERYONE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU. (APPLAUSE).

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: MAYBE I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION TO THE FOLKS OUT THERE. THIS ONE IS DIRECTED TOWARDS PARTICIPANTS IN THE SMALLER COMMUNITIES. NOT THE CITY OF LONDON OR THE KITCHENER OR WATERLOO OR THE TORONTO OR OTTAWA BUT PERHAPS THOSE FROM THE RURAL AREAS. WHAT WOULD A STRENGTHENED ODA MEAN TO YOU BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE CHALLENGES THAT YOU PROBABLY FACE ARE QUITE DIFFERENT THAN THOSE OF US WHO ARE LIVING IN THE LARGER MUNICIPALITIES. PERHAPS IF SOMEONE FROM, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY THEY ARE REPRESENTED FROM THOSE AREAS MIGHT WANT TO ADDRESS IT AND GIVE US SOME COMMENTS AS TO CHALLENGES THAT YOU'RE FACING AND HOW YOU THINK A STRENGTHENED ODA WILL IMPROVE LIFE WITHIN YOUR OWN

COMMUNITY. WHO WANTS TO TAKE THAT ONE ON?

>> HI. I'M DONNA JAV (PHOEN). I'M A CHAIRPERSON FOR ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE ... (INAUDIBLE) ... ALLISTON, TOTTENHAM (PHOEN), WHICH ARE ALL SMALL TOWNS AND TECUMSEH WHICH IS THE RURAL AREA. WE HAVE A VERY ACTIVE ACCESSIBILITY GROUP AND I WAS ON COUNCIL PREVIOUS TO NOVEMBER, AND MY HUSBAND HAD TWO SPINAL CORD INJURIES, SO IT WAS NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART TO BE ON THIS COMMITTEE. I FEEL THAT OUR COMMITTEE IS REALLY GOING FORWARD WITH OUR COUNCILLORS. WE HAVE HAD THEM PARTICIPATE IN AN AWARENESS DAY, AND IT MADE OUR COMMUNITY AWARE OF OUR CHALLENGES OUT IN THE COUNTRY AS WELL AS IN A SMALL TOWN. OUR SMALL TOWNS HAVE VERY OLD STORES AND WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO GET THEM TO START THINKING ABOUT MAKING IT ACCESSIBLE FOR THE SHOPPING, FOR OUR RESIDENTS IN OUR TOWNS. WE'RE THINKING OF PARTICIPATING WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND GETTING A WORKSHOP GOING WITH OUR LITTLE SMALLER TOWNS TO GET THEM MORE AWARE AND I DON'T THINK -- JACK, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD?

>> JACKIE TODD. AND I HAVE TWO CHILDREN IN WHEELCHAIRS AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COMMUNITY MORE ACCESSIBLE SO I CAN TAKE MY KIDS SHOPPING.

THERE'S ONE RESTAURANT IN A BRAND NEW BUILDING, LEVEL, BEAUTIFUL, BUT I HAVE TO OPEN ONE DOOR; HOLD IT WITH MY HIP WHILE I PUSH ONE WHEELCHAIR IN BECAUSE THERE ARE NO DOOR OPENERS. THAT KIND OF STUFF AND I THINK IT'S THIS KIND OF THING THAT OPENS PEOPLE'S MINDS TO WHY IS THERE DISCRIMINATION? WE'RE ALL PEOPLE. WHY IS -- WHY CAN I GO IN A BUILDING -- BECAUSE I CAN WALK IN AND WHY CAN'T MY SON WHO IS IN A WHEELCHAIR GET UP THE STEPS BECAUSE THERE IS NO RAMP? IT IS CALL INCLUSION THAT EVERYBODY IS VALUABLE AND EVERYBODY DESERVES THE SAME RIGHT TO ANY PARTICIPATION THAT THEY WANT TO BE IN.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (APPLAUSE). SOMEONE ELSE FROM ONE OF OUR SMALLER COMMUNITIES?

>> WE HAVE AN ORDER THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GO IN HERE, PEOPLE, SO --

>> GERRARD TAYLOR. I'M CHAIR OF THE SAULT STE. MARIE ... (INAUDIBLE). WE ALL SEEM TO HAVE A DIVERSITY OF PROBLEMS WITH THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHAT CAN WE DO TO OPEN THE EYES OF OUR TOP OFFICIALS IN GOVERNMENT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON AND TO REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN WE GO IN THERE WITH ANY TYPE OF COMPLAINT THEY SAY "YEAH, YEAH. WE UNDERSTAND," THEN

THEY CLOSE THE DOOR AND SCHEDULE THEIR GOLF GAME. (LAUGHTER) SO I MEAN IF I WERE TO BRING -- WOULD I DO ANYTHING TO BRING ATTENTION TO THIS CAUSE AND I LIKE TO KNOW MAYBE WHAT YOU THINK WE CAN DO TO BRING ATTENTION TO SAY PREMIER MCGUINTY.

BETTE JONES: I THINK THAT MAYBE I CAN ANSWER PART OF THIS QUESTION. IN OUR TOWN WE HAVE A BANK WITH AN AUTOMATIC DOOR OPENER. THERE'S ALSO A THREE INCH STEP TO GET TO IT (LAUGHTER) SO I WROTE A LETTER TO THE PAPER AND JUST MENTIONED THE FACT THAT IT WAS VERY NICE THAT I COULD OPEN THE DOOR IF I COULD GET UP THAT THREE INCH STEP. ALSO, AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS -- WHEN I WENT TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS IT WAS NOT FOR -- ALTHOUGH I FILED THE SUIT, IT WAS FOR OTHER PEOPLE IN WHEELCHAIRS ALSO. I THINK THAT PEOPLE THAT I FILED AGAINST SAID, "WHO IS THIS LITTLE OLD LADY IN A WHEELCHAIR? WHAT IS SHE GOING TO DO? AND HOW WILL SHE GET IT TO HUMAN RIGHTS?" THEY CALLED MY BLUFF. WHAT HAPPENED? THEY ACCEPTED IT AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, AND AFTER WINNING THE CASE, I HAVE FOUND THAT THEY NO LONGER SAY "WHAT CAN THIS LITTLE OLD LADY DO IN A WHEELCHAIR?" THEY KNOW WHAT THIS LITTLE OLD LADY IN A WHEELCHAIR CAN DO! (LAUGHTER). (APPLAUSE).

>> STEVE, EMPLOYMENT ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I WANT TO BRING THE ISSUE BACK AS TO WHAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER WAS THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND THE BACKLOG. I SUGGEST THAT YOU EITHER --GET SOME INSIGHT INTO THIS ONE. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THE ODA IS SUPPOSE TO BE AN UMBRELLA PIECE OF LEGISLATION. THAT MEANS EVERY NEW PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS GOING TO BE HELD UNDER THE MICROSCOPE AND MAKE SURE IT ADHERES TO CERTAIN STANDARDS. WHAT I'M HOPING AND BELIEVING EFFECTIVE ODA, ENFORCING MECHANISM TO GO INTO IT. SO YOU WON'T HAVE THESE ISSUES. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS ARE GOING FOR A NEW ODA SO IT HAS AN ENFORCEABLE MECHANISM PUT INTO IT SO THAT IT WON'T BE UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL TO MOVE FORWARD -- TO BRING INDIVIDUAL CASES TO THE AAC.

PATTI BREGMAN: YOU'RE CORRECT. AS AN UMBRELLA PIECE OF LEGISLATION EVERYTHING WHETHER IT'S ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PLAN, THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS ACT WOULD HAVE TO BE VIEWED THROUGH THAT LENS AND THAT THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION WOULD HAVE AS MUCH OF AN OBLIGATION TO REMOVE BARRIERS AS ANY OTHER BODY IN THE PROVINCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT. THE OTHER THING IS TO MAKE SURE WE ALSO

DON'T DO AWAY WITH THE HUMAN RIGHTS. AS MUCH AS WE CAN HAVE UMBRELLA LEGISLATION, THERE WILL STILL BE INSTANCES WHERE THERE WILL BE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE BARRIERS THAT AREN'T REMOVED. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT SAYING ON THE ONE HAND WE HAVE THIS NEW LEGISLATION THAT WILL REMOVE BARRIERS SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO BRING COMPLAINTS. IT'S THE OPPOSITE. WE STILL NEED TO HAVE BOTH MECHANISMS IN PLACE.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: WE HAVE GOT ABOUT FIVE MINUTES LEFT SO WE'LL TAKE ONE MORE SPEAKER AND THEN I'LL ASK EACH OF OUR PANELISTS TO MAKE SOME CLOSING REMARKS AND THEN WE'LL ADJOURN.

>> I'M ON THE ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. YOU ASK WHAT CAN WE DO OR WHAT SHOULD WE DO AND FRANKLY I THINK WE'RE MOVING AHEAD. UNTIL I BECAME INVOLVED IN THE COMMITTEE I WASN'T AWARE OF THE DISABILITIES THAT WERE OUT THERE. I WASN'T AWARE OF THE EFFECT OUR FACILITIES HAD WITH PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES SO I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO IN OUR COMMUNITIES PERHAPS IS GET INVOLVED IN MORE ADVOCACY; GET INVOLVED IN GETTING INFORMATION IN THE FRONT PAGES OF THE PAPER; GET INVOLVED LIKE WE DID AND MARGARITA DID PAINT THE TOWN YELLOW OF MAKING PEOPLE AWARE, ABLE-BODIED PEOPLE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT NEEDS ASSISTANCE, THAT NEEDS TO

HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WE DO. I THINK WE'RE DOING A GREAT JOB. I THINK THE OPPORTUNITY IS TO SPREAD THE WORD. I THINK THE OPPORTUNITY AS WELL IS TO MAKE SURE IT GETS OUT IN THE PRESS. MAKE SURE OUR POLITICIANS KNOW BIT. IT IS NOT THE DOLLAR. WE'RE BUILDING A $24,000,000 FACILITY IN PROBABLY TWO YEARS. OUR POLITICIANS ARE VERY MUCH AWARE AND PEOPLE ON THE AAC ARE INVOLVED IN THE DESIGN AND I THINK WE'RE MOVING AHEAD POSITIVELY.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: THANK YOU.

>> I'M YOUR SISTER ASHFAQ. CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? (LAUGHTER). THAT'S WHY I REALLY WANTED TO INTERRUPT HIM. I SIT ON THE AAC COMMITTEE REGIONAL PEEL. IT'S A VERY LARGE AREA. WE SERVE OVER A MILLION PEOPLE. WE ALSO FACE A LOT OF ISSUES AND PROBLEMS ALONG THE WAY, BUT I FIND THAT IT'S LIKE THE GROWING PAINS. WE STARTED OUT WITH SMALL STEPS. WE TRY TO IDENTIFY THE BARRIERS, THE ISSUES THAT AFFECT PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. LIKE YOU COMMENTED YOURSELF, BIG BROTHER, WE BROUGHT MANAGEMENT TO THE TABLE AND I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST STEP IN THE WHOLE PROCESS IS BRINGING THEM -- LETTING THEM IDENTIFY WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND THEN FOR THEM TO TAKE IT BACK TO THEIR STAFF AND HAVE THEM ACT ON IT, AND MY COLLEAGUES BACK HERE -- BILL WILL

TESTIFY WE ARE MOVING AHEAD SLOWLY BUT SURELY, BUT WE DO ENVY THE SMALLER TOWNS BECAUSE WE CAN SEE IMMEDIATELY THAT YOU'RE MAKING PROGRESS AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET THERE TOO SO WISH US LUCK. THANKS BIG BROTHER! (APPLAUSE).

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: WELL I ACTUALLY GOT A THANK YOU FROM HER. (LAUGHTER) USUALLY IT'S JUST MY TURN TO SPEAK! AND THIS IS MY WIFE. SHE ALSO GETS TO INTERRUPT ME WHENEVER SHE WANTS TO. (LAUGHTER). I HAVE BEEN TOLD THERE IS A LADY ON THE RIGHT HERE WHO HAS HAD HER HAND UP FOR AWHILE AND WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING. WE'LL GIVE HER THAT OPPORTUNITY AS BEING THE LAST SPEAKER.

>> YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES LEFT. WHO IS THE LADY WITH THE QUESTION?

>> FRONT ROW.

DOUG MORTON: I'LL BE PHIL DONAHUE!

>> ONE OF KASH'S FAMILY MEMBERS! (LAUGHTER).

>> I'M THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COLLINGWOOD ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THE ACT HAS TO HAVE SOME TEETH TO IT. SECONDLY, I THINK THAT THE PRIVATE

SECTOR HAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ACT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE, BUT THE PERSON THAT WE HAVE ON OUR COMMITTEE KEEPS SAYING, "WELL YOU CAN SUGGEST IT TO STORES AND THAT SORT OF THING, AND IT CAN BE IN THE BUILDING CODE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY HAVE TO DO IT." THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO DO SAY WHILE I HAVE GOT THE MICROPHONE IS THAT I'M ALSO INVOLVED WITH NOT JUST TAG DOGS BUT ASSISTANCE DOGS. THOSE OF US WHO DO HAVE GUIDE DOGS ARE FORTUNATE WHEN WE DO RUN INTO DISCRIMINATION WHICH DOES HAPPEN. WE AT LEAST HAVE THE BLIND PERSON'S RIGHTS ACT THAT WE CAN PULL OUT AND WE CAN HAND IT TO THE PROPRIETOR AND SAY, "THIS IS THE LAW." HOWEVER, WHEN IT COMES TO PEOPLE WITH HEARING AND SERVICE DOGS, THE ONLY REFERENCE THAT IS MADE TO THEM IS IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, AND WHAT PROPRIETOR IS GOING TO THUMB THROUGH A WHOLE VOLUME LIKE THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE TO FIND OUT WHERE THE REFERENCE IS TO HEARING AND SERVICE DOGS? SO IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO EXPAND THE BLIND PERSON'S RIGHTS ACT TO TAKE IN HEARING SERVICE DOGS AND GIVE THEM THE SAME KIND OF LEGISLATIVE PROTECTION THAT GUIDE DOGS HAVE, THEN YOU AT LEAST NEED TO MAKE THE REFERENCE TO WHATEVER LAW THERE IS ACCESSIBLE SO THAT THEY CAN AT LEAST HAVE SOMETHING TO POINT TO. THANKS.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (APPLAUSE).

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: DOUG IS PROBABLY GOING TO TELL ME THAT I HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT.

DOUG MORTON: FIFTEEN!

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN VERY FRUITFUL. WE HAVE GOT A 15 MINUTE BREAK AND WE'LL BE COMING BACK AT 11:00 O'CLOCK AND THE TOPIC OF THAT PANEL WILL BE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING WITHOUT A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE ODA. I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS. (APPLAUSE).

-- BREAK AT 10:45 A.M.

-- RESUMED AT 11:00 A.M.

KATHY LEWIS: WE'RE ALMOST READY TO RESUME. YOU MUST TAKE YOUR SEATS. YOU NOW HAVE ONE MINUTE OR DOUG MORTON WILL PUT YOU IN YOUR SEAT! WE'RE NOW READY TO BEGIN. YOU MUST NOW TAKE YOUR SEATS. IF WE CAN HAVE YOUR ATTENTION, PLEASE. DAVID WINNINGER FROM LONDON CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW MODERATE THE NEXT PANEL.

DAVID WINNINGER: THANK YOU, KATHY. I HOPE YOU ENJOYED YOUR NETWORKING BREAK AND I WOULD LIKE

TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EXTEND MY THANKS TO KATHY LEWIS AND HER COLLEAGUES FOR ORGANIZING THIS IMPORTANT FORUM. I WAS GRATIFIED TO HEAR SOME NEWS FROM THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT THIS MORNING THAT A STRONGER ODA IS IN THE OFFING THIS FALL, BUT I URGE YOU TO BE MINDFUL THAT IT OFTEN TAKES MANY MONTHS, SOME TIMES OVER A YEAR FOR LEGISLATORS TO PASS LEGISLATION. THE ADVOCACY ACT AND EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACTS WERE MENTIONED EARLIER THIS MORNING, AND IT TOOK MONTHS TO IMPLEMENT THOSE ACTS AND ONLY DAYS FOR THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT TO RESCIND THEM SO WITH THE OBVIOUS EXCEPTION OF THE U.S. CONGRESS WHEN IT PASSED THE PATRIOT ACT OVERNIGHT WITHOUT EVEN READING IT, OUR GOVERNMENT DOES TAKE AWHILE TO BRING IN NEW LEGISLATION. THERE IS CONSULTATION. THERE IS COMMITTEE WORK. THERE IS DEBATE AND THEN IT PASSES THIRD READING, AND I SAY THIS BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE A GOOD ANNOUNCEMENT THIS FALL AND IT MAY INDEED BE A NEW ACT THAT WILL EMBODY MANY OR ALL OF THE 11 PRINCIPLES YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING SO LONG FOR, IT TAKES AWHILE TO GET THE STATUTE PASSED AND IT TAKES EVEN LONGER TO PASS REGULATIONS AND IMPLEMENT IT, SO THE TASK OF OUR PANEL THIS MORNING IS TO ANALYZE WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE MEANTIME WITHOUT A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE ONTARIO DISABILITIES ACT, AND THAT EACH OF THE

PANELISTS THAT ARE WITH ME TODAY HAVE HAD AN ACTIVE ROLE IN THE PAST AND IN THE PRESENT IN ADVOCATING FOR THE VERY ISSUES THAT ARE AT THE HEART OF TODAY'S PROGRAM. SO AT MY FAR LEFT, YOUR RIGHT, IS STEVE BALCOM OF THE LONDON ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND BESIDE HIM IS SANDY LEVIN, A FORMAL CITY COUNCILLOR IN LONDON -- SORRY -- THEY CHANGE SEATS -- ROBIN ARMISTEAD, WHO IS OUR LONDON ACCESSIBILITY COORDINATOR AND IS PROBABLY KNOWN TO MANY OF YOU. THEN WE HAVE SANDY LEVIN FORMER MEMBER OF CITY COUNCIL AND I SHOULD NOTE THAT I HAVE WORKED WITH SANDY IN THE PAST AND IT HAS BEEN AWESOME. I HAVE BEEN ON CITY COUNCIL JUST SINCE 2000 AND THIS YEAR I AM CHAIR OF THE COMMUNITY PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE. AND WE ALSO HAVE WITH US JIM JONES FROM WOODSTOCK. HE SERVES ON THE ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT AND YOUR RIGHT. I AM GOING TO ASK EACH OF OUR PANELISTS TO SPEAK FOR A FEW MINUTES AS TO THEIR VANTAGE POINT ON WHAT WE CAN DO UNTIL THE STRENGTHENED ODA CAN BE EFFECTIVE AND THEN I'M GOING TO POSE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS TO THEM AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO OPEN IT UP AGAIN WIDE OPEN FOR THE AUDIENCE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE STEVE BALCOM LEAD OFF.

STEVE BALCOM: THANKS DAVID.

FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK KATHY LEWIS FOR ASKING ME TO SPEAK THIS MORNING, AND AS I WAS GETTING PREPARED FOR TODAY I THOUGHT OF MICHAEL, AND SO WHEN SOMEONE SAID "I CAN SEE HIM GIVING THE TWO THUMBS UP", FOR THOSE OF US HERE TODAY - KEEP GOING! ANYWAY, AS A BIT OF A BACKGROUND TO MYSELF, I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH DISABILITY ISSUES FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. THAT'S A POLITE WAY OF SAYING IT. A VERY LONG TIME (LAUGHTER). MY STEPCHILD SAYS, 'DAD, YOU'RE OLDER THAN DIRT.' ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I ADMIRED AND RESPECTED ABOUT GETTING THE ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE TOGETHER, WAS THAT WE ARE AND WERE VERY FORTUNATE IN THE BEGINNING TO HELP CONSUMERS WITH A WIDE VARIETY DISABILITIES WHICH THEY'RE VERY FAMILIAR. I UNDERSTOOD THE TERM ADVOCACY AND WHAT IT MEANT AND POTENTIALLY WHAT ROLE THEY HAD ON THE COMMITTEE ITSELF. I AM A FIRM BELIEVER IN THAT THE TERM "ADVOCACY" AND "INCLUSION" HAVE BECOME DIRTY WORDS OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS IN CERTAIN CIRCLES BUT WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE HERE IN LONDON TO HAVE HAD THE INDIVIDUAL COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE AROUND THE TABLE THAT REALLY HAVE A VERY GOOD GRASP TO WHAT ADVOCACY MEANS. IT'S QUITE REFRESHING TO GO TO ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS, AND AS A GROUP WE ARE NOT SHY OF OPINIONS AND ARE QUITE

WILLING TO SPEAK OUR MINDS ON VARIOUS ISSUES. THERE IS ALSO AN UNDERSTANDING AND I THINK A MUTUAL RESPECT AROUND THE TABLE THAT WHAT WE SAY IN OUR COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND THE WAY WE PRESENT OURSELVES WHEN WE MAKE PRESENTATIONS TO VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL AND, INDEED, AT TIMES INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND EVEN THE MAYOR OF THE CITY AT TIMES, WE HAVE A VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT IS THAT WE NEED TO DO, AND BY THAT I MEAN DO YOUR HOMEWORK BECAUSE IT BECOMES VERY CLEAR AROUND THE TABLE VERY QUICKLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE BRINGING UP ISSUES TO THE COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL AND SOME TIMES THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND BELIEVE ME THOSE OF US THAT HAVE BEEN DOING THIS LONG ENOUGH REALIZE THAT AS I LIKE TO SAY IT'S OKAY TO BE ANGRY. ANGER IS A GOOD MOTIVATOR BUT MAKE IT WORK FOR YOU. NOT AGAINST YOU. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE SEEN HAPPEN OVER THE YEARS IS ALL THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN SPOKEN THIS MORNING ARE VERY VALID AND CRUCIAL TO AN EFFECTIVE ODA. HOWEVER, IF YOU SO OVERWHELMED BY YOUR ANGER THAT YOUR POINT IS NOT HEARD, THEN UNFORTUNATELY RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY YOUR OPINION GETS DISMISSED OUT OF HAND SO I CAN'T STRESS THAT ENOUGH. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE ALSO HAVE FUN, AND ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKE ABOUT OUR COMMITTEE IN THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED ARE SOME COMMITTEES

ARE VERY INFORMAL. VOTING MEMBER ON THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. (B) IT'S A WAY TO INCLUDE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND I MUST COMMEND KATHY AS CHAIR TO TAKING STRIDES TO MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC, IF THEY WANT TO GIVE THEIR INPUT, ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO APPEAR AT THE SUB-COMMITTEE MEETINGS. THAT GOES A LONG WAY TO BEING INCLUSIVE WHICH I THINK IS WHAT 95% OF THE ODA IS ABOUT AND SHOULD BE ABOUT. WHAT ELSE? THAT'S ABOUT IT.

DAVID WINNINGER: THANK YOU, STEVE. (APPLAUSE).

ROBIN ARMISTEAD: FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO SAY WELCOME TO ALL OF THE VISITORS TODAY WHO ARE NOT FROM LONDON. I DIDN'T REALIZE THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE NOT FROM LONDON. WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL CITY AND I WANT YOU TO ENJOY IT AND WE APPRECIATE OUR NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE COME IN FROM PLACES LIKE WOODSTOCK, ST. THOMAS, COLLINGWOOD. THAT'S JUST FANTASTIC! I WANT TO SAY I REALLY ENJOYED MY TIME WORKING WITH THE ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND PEOPLE LIKE STEVE. THEY HAVE BEEN FANTASTIC PEOPLE AND WE HAVE DONE QUITE A FEW THINGS. TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND, I AM

AN ACCESSIBILITY COORDINATOR BUT I AM NOT A DEDICATED ACCESSIBILITY COORDINATOR. I WORK IN THE CAO'S OFFICE WHICH IS A GOOD PLACE TO HAVE ME BUT I AM DEDICATED TO THE ISSUES AND I HAVE BEEN FOR A LOT OF YEARS AND WE WORKED ON A NUMBER OF POLICIES EVEN BEFORE THE ODA CAME INTO PLACE. WE HAVE THE ACCESSIBILITY POLICY. WE HAVE INCLUSION POLICY AND RECREATION AND WE ALSO HAVE WHAT WE CALL OUR FACILITY DESIGN STANDARDS, AND IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE STANDARDS, THEY MAY BE ON THE DISK WHICH IS IN YOUR PACKAGE. THESE STANDARDS GO BEYOND AND ABOVE THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE AND I'M A REAL BELIEVER IN STANDARDS BECAUSE I THINK YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE LEVEL OF ACCESSIBILITY IN ONE COMMUNITY AND ANOTHER LEVEL IN ANOTHER COMMUNITY. EVENTUALLY IT HAS GOT TO BE THE SAME ACROSS ONTARIO, SO OUR SNEAKY WAY OF DOING IT USE OUR ACCESSIBILITY, OUR FAD STANDARDS IN YOUR COMMUNITIES BECAUSE EVENTUALLY THAT WILL AFFECT THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE AND IT WILL AFFECT THE SUPPLIERS WHO SUPPLY THE WIDER DOORS. WE WANT YOU TO DO THIS BUT IF THE SUPPLIERS CAN'T SUPPLY THE BUILDING MATERIALS TO MEET THOSE NEEDS, THEN WE HAVE GOT A PROBLEM. SO IT HAPPENS OVER TIME SO, PLEASE, I'M PROMOTING OUR FAD STANDARDS BECAUSE WE ARE VERY PROUD OF THEM AND WE'RE VERY PROUD THAT CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THEM EVEN BEFORE THE ODA WAS IN PLACE BECAUSE IN LONDON WE

REALLY FEEL STRONGLY THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, AND SINCE WORKING WITH THE ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND WE GOT THE COMMITTEE UP AND GOING, WE HAVE A LARGE COMMITTEE. WE HAVE 13 VOTING MEMBERS AND WE ALSO HAVE RESOURCE MEMBERS AND WE ALSO -- AND THOSE ARE FROM AGENCIES AND UMBRELLA GROUPS AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE STAFF IN EACH OF THE DEPARTMENTS SUPPORTING WHAT GOES ON FOR ACCESSIBILITY AND THAT'S HOW WE HAVE DEVELOPED OUR FIRST ACCESSIBILITY PLAN WAS THAT WE WENT TO EACH OF THE DEPARTMENTS AND WE WORKED WITH THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND ASKED THEM WHAT DO YOU THINK WE NEED TO DO BECAUSE AS WE HAVE SAID THE LEGISLATION ISN'T TOO SPECIFIC. IT GIVES YOU SOME BROAD IDEAS BUT WE HAVE TO GO TO THE DEPARTMENTS AND SAY OKAY WHAT DO YOU THINK WE CAN DO? AND THE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE SAID OKAY ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO BECAUSE IT'S A MUTUAL EDUCATION PROCESS HERE. AND WE'RE WORKING NOW ON OUR ACCESSIBILITY PLAN FOR 2005 AND WE'RE PLANNING TO HAVE THAT GO BEFORE COUNCIL IN DECEMBER. NOW THIS IS NOT THE SEPTEMBER 30TH DEADLINE THAT WHEN THE LEGISLATION WAS PASSED, BUT WE REALLY FEEL STRONGLY THAT WE HAVE TO DO PUBLIC CONSULTATION IN THE FALL AND NOT IN THE AUGUST TIME FRAME, AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU

ABOUT OUR ACCESSIBILITY PLANNING. IN TERMS OF WHAT DO MUNICIPALITIES NEED, THESE ARE -- MUNICIPALITIES NEED, THESE ARE THE KEY POINTS I WANT TO MAKE. WE NEED FLEXIBILITY BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE NEED MORE SPECIFICS NOW. FLEXIBILITY WAS REALLY GOOD TO GET STARTED AND TO HAVE THE ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS SUPER BUT WE'RE ASKING A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT SPECIFICS DO WE NEED? I'M A REAL BELIEVER OF STANDARDS AS I SAID. IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO SAY FOR THE PURCHASING BY-LAW, YOU NEED TO RECOGNIZE ACCESSIBILITY. I THINK IT'S WHAT WE HAVE SHOWN IS OUR FAD STANDARDS, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE STANDARD YOU HAVE TO BUY A DOOR THAT IS SUCH AND SUCH A SIZE, AND THAT INFLUENCES THE PURCHASING DIRECTLY OF WHAT WE HAVE TO PURCHASE FOR ALL OUR RETROFIT BUILDINGS AND ALL OUR NEW BUILDINGS OR IS IT REGULATIONS? EVEN WITH -- WE NEED MORE SPECIFICS BECAUSE MUNICIPALITIES ARE ASKING WHAT SPECIFICALLY DO YOU WANT US TO DO AND WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO? WE NEED TO HAVE THE PLAN ON A CALENDAR YEAR. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR PLAN APPROVED IN DECEMBER BECAUSE OUR BUDGET PROCESS IS AN ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS ON THE CALENDAR YEAR AND WE WANT TO DO CONSULTATION WHEN THE MAJORITY OF YOU ARE AROUND. NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SUMMER. AND WE WOULD REALLY LIKE -- THIS MAY NOT BE THE

POPULAR VIEW -- BUT TO EXPAND THE TIME FRAME FOR HAVING TO DO THE PLAN. IT'S GOING TO GET HARDER AND HARDER EVERY YEAR TO DO A NEW PLAN BECAUSE WE HAVE GOT SOME BIG ITEMS ON THAT PLAN. WHETHER IT'S MAKING ALL OUR PATHWAYS ACCESSIBLE. IF WE DO A COUPLE A YEAR WE CAN SPREAD IT OUT. MAKING OUR AQUATIC CENTERS ACCESSIBLE WITH EQUIPMENT. IT'S A GRADUAL PROCESS BUT THE SAME THINGS ARE NOW IN PLACE. WE HAVE STARTED THE BALL ROLLING SO TO ASK US TO DO NEW EVERY YEAR YOU'RE GOING TO START TO SEE MUNICIPALITIES HAVE PLANS WHERE IT'S GOING TO SAY CONTINUE TO CONTINUE TO CONTINUE TO. SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A REAL DIFFICULTY AND SOME ITEMS ARE REALLY BIG MONEY ITEMS FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES TO DO AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO IT. YOU HAVE JUST GOT TO REALIZE THAT MAYBE WE NEED LEGISLATION THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, SOME OF OUR MUNICIPALITIES WE PUT IN A TTY LINE. NOT ALL MUNICIPALITIES HAVE THAT. YOU NEED TO TELL ALL MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD HAVE A TTY LINE FOR THE HARD OF HEARING AND DEAF. WE NEED MORE DISABILITIES STATISTICS AND WE NEED BE MORE AWARE ACROSS THE PROVINCE ABOUT WHAT OTHER CITIES, TOWNS ET CETERA ARE DOING AND HOW WE MEASURE AGAINST THEM BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE CAN'T TELL YOU. WE DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE DOING -- WE THINK WE'RE DOING

PRETTY WELL BUT WE DON'T REALLY KNOW AND WE NEED THE PROVINCE TO HELP US WITH THAT. OF COURSE WE NEED PROVINCIAL FUNDING BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THIS LEGISLATION WAS GIVEN -- THE ONUS WAS GIVEN TO MUNICIPALITIES AND THERE WASN'T ANY FUNDING THAT CAME ALONG WITH THIS AND WE ARE GOING THROUGH SOME PRETTY TOUGH BUDGET YEARS AND IT'S PRETTY HARD TO SAY TO DEPARTMENTS WHO ARE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE SERVICES THAT THEY EVEN HAVE RIGHT NOW, OH,, AND BY THE WAY YOU HAVE TO ADD ACCESSIBLE SERVICES SO PROVINCIAL FUNDING CAN ALSO BE APPLIED TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR THROUGH INCENTIVE PROGRAMS, SAY, TO ENCOURAGE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS OWNERS TO RETROFIT THEIR BUILDINGS SO THAT MONEY COULD COME FROM A PROVINCE AND BE ADMINISTERED BY THE MUNICIPALITIES IS ONE SUGGESTION. AND WE NEED THE PROVINCE TO HAVE MORE OF A PROMOTIONAL CAMPAIGN. IT SHOULDN'T BE UP TO EVERY MUNICIPALITY TO PROMOTE THE ACCESSIBILITY. IT SHOULD BE A PROVINCIAL INITIATIVE AND WE SHOULD -- IT WOULD BE A BIGGER BANG FOR THE BUCK IF WE CAN -- WE CAN ALL DO OUR PART BUT WE NEED THE PROVINCE TO, YOU KNOW, GET OUT THERE WITH THE MEDIA AND SAY YOU KNOW WE'RE REALLY PROUD OF WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR THIS PROVINCE. WE WANT THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO TO BE THE MOST ACCESSIBLE PROVINCE IN CANADA. HOW DO WE DO THAT? AND WE NEED AS A MUNICIPALITY HELP

WITH MENTAL HEALTH DISABILITIES. WE ARE VERY FOCUSSED AND THERE'S THE EASIER ONES TO DO I SUPPOSE THE PHYSICAL DISABILITIES BECAUSE THERE IS SUCH A NEED, BUT AFTER THAT THE HIDDEN DISABILITIES, THE MENTAL HEALTH DISABILITIES, MUNICIPALITIES NEED HELP WITH KNOWING WHAT SHOULD BE DONE AND I WAS CERTAINLY LISTENING TO PATTI IN WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY AND HOPE THAT WE CAN TALK MORE IN THE FUTURE. AND FINALLY WE NEED MORE DISCUSSION FORUMS LIKE WE'RE HAVING TODAY BECAUSE WE NEED TO NETWORK AND MUNICIPALITIES -- WE'RE KIND OF ISOLATED EVEN WITH THE ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES. WE NEED OPPORTUNITIES TO GET TOGETHER, TO SHARE IDEAS, TO SAY OH, I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT. MAYBE WE CAN TRY THAT IDEA IN OUR MUNICIPALITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

DAVID WINNINGER: THANK YOU. (APPLAUSE).

SANDY LEVIN: ONE OF THE THINGS IT'S UNFORTUNATE ABOUT GETTING TO PLACES WHERE WE WANT TO BE THAT INSTANT ACCESS TAKES TIME. I DO LOOK FORWARD TO THE DAY WHERE WE DO LOOK BACK AND THIS TIME AND SAY COULD YOU BELIEVE THAT IN 2004 WE WERE -- THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE NICE THINGS TO SAY IN THE FUTURE JUST LIKE WE CAN LOOK BACK IN 1965 AND SAY, "CAN YOU BELIEVE THERE WEREN'T

WOMEN'S WASHROOMS FOR ENGINEERS?" IN ORDER TO DO THINGS WITHOUT A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE ODA I THINK IT TAKES THREE THINGS. IT TAKES PEOPLE, IT TAKES SOMETHING TO HANG YOUR HAT ON, AND AN ELEMENT OF PLAIN DUMB LUCK. LET ME TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT IN THE LONDON CONTEXT. (LAUGHTER). PEOPLE -- AS STEVE ALLUDED TO AND STEVE IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE CITY COUNCIL AT A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME PUT UNDER THE MONIKER THE USUAL SUSPECTS. STEVE AND SHIRLEY AND BONNIE WHO ARE HERE TODAY, PEOPLE LIKE BOB ... (INAUDIBLE) ... AND KATHY WHO ARE NOT HERE TODAY AND PEOPLE WHO ARE NO LONGER WITH US, PEOPLE LIKE CANDACE Q. INNES (PHOEN) AND MICHAEL LEWIS AND PEOPLE WHO ARE CONTINUALLY INVOLVED IN THE MESSAGE GOING FORWARD THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND NEVER GIVING UP, NEVER GOING AWAY. AND THEN THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED PEOPLE LIKE LARRY DUCHARME AT LDC, AND THE LONDON TRANSIT COMMISSION THAT YEARS AGO FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS DECIDED THAT THEIR FLEET OF TRANSIT BUSES WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT THAT TRANSIT BUSES AT THE TIME NEED TO BE ACCESSIBLE. IT WAS DONE BECAUSE (A) IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND, SECONDLY, FROM A BUSINESS SENSE IT MAKES COMPLETE SENSE BECAUSE THE SPECIALIZED TRANSIT IS SO MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE CONVENTIONAL TRANSIT, AND AS MANY

CUSTOMERS THEY CAN GET ON THE REGULAR CONVENTIONAL TRANSIT AS OPPOSED TO THE SPECIALIZED TRANSIT IS A GOOD BUSINESS DECISION. AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED --PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN SENIOR ADMINISTRATION IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF LONDON WHO RECOGNIZE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND HELPED ME AS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL IN HOW TO MOVE FORWARD ON A STEP-BY-STEP BASIS TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE WANTED TO BE. ONE OF THE THINGS I LEARNED ABOUT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IS IT'S NOT ONLY THE CIVIC OFFICIALS, THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, BUT IT'S ALSO THE ADMINISTRATION WHO HELP YOU IN MAKING DECISIONS OR GETTING THINGS DONE THAT NEED TO BE DONE. THE HOOK AT LEAST FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ONTARIO I THINK IS THANKS TO DAVID LEPOFSKY AND THE 11 PRINCIPLES. DAVID'S STRATEGY OF GETTING THE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE TO PASS THE 11 PRINCIPLES UNANIMOUSLY ALLOWED ALL THE COMMITTEES IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO TO GO TO THEIR OWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND SAY HEY WHY DID YOU PASS THIS? WHY DON'T YOU SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE ALL PARTIES AT THE PROVINCIAL LEVEL PASSED IT? AND ONCE THAT GOT PASSED BOTH PROVINCIALLY AND LOCALLY WE WERE ABLE TO GO BACK AND SAY, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN? YOU

DON'T AGREE WITH THESE THINGS THAT YOU PASSED? HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND? OR DIDN'T YOU REALLY MEAN WHAT YOU SAID WHAT YOU MEANT?" SO THAT HOOK PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND GET A LITTLE BIT MORE EACH AND EVERY TIME. AND KIND OF THE DUMB LUCK PART, AT LEAST IN THE CITY OF LONDON, WAS TWO-FOLD. ONE THE MUNICIPALITY OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON CAPITAL PROJECTS IN THIS MUNICIPALITY, AND SO IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL TO SAY, "WE CAN'T AFFORD ACCESSIBILITY" BECAUSE YOU COULD STICK UP YOUR HAND AND SAY "EXCUSE ME WE JUST SPENT MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON PROJECT A, PROJECT B AND PROJECT C." AND SECOND PART OF THE DUMB LUCK WAS ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS WAS THE COVENANT GARDEN MARKET AND THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM FROM LONDON -- AND I CAN TELL FROM THE REACTION --KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. THERE WERE THINGS THAT WERE NOT DONE RIGHT. AND THE MESSAGE AT THE TIME WAS DON'T WORRY FOLKS. THE BUILDING CODE WILL TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING. RIGHT? (LAUGHTER) AND YOU KNOW AS LONDONERS THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. IN FACT SIMPLE THINGS LIKE THE RAMP WAS NOT EVEN DONE TO BUILDING CODE STANDARDS AND THAT BIT OF EGG ON THE FACE OF THE MUNICIPALITY WAS IN HINDSIGHT A GOOD THING BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF LEARNING THAT CAME OUT OF THAT. WE'RE NOT

ALL THE WAY THERE BY ANY MEANS. WE HAVE GOT A FACILITY ACCESSIBILITY DESIGN STANDARD THAT ONLY DEALS MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, BUT WHEN JOHN LABATT CENTER GOT BUILT, THERE WAS A CONSULTANT INVOLVED FROM THE ONTARIO MARCH OF DIMES, AND MANY OF THE MISTAKES THAT WERE MADE IN THE MARKET WERE NOT REPEATED AT THE JOHN LABATT CENTER, WERE NOT REPEATED AT THE LONDON PUBLIC LIBRARY SO THAT ELEMENT OF DUMB LUCK REALLY HELPED MUNICIPALLY MOVE THINGS FORWARD AND BECAUSE OF THE ACCESSIBILITY DESIGN STANDARDS NOW BEING ENTRENCHED, THE NEW FACILITIES GET BUILT WITH THOSE BARRIERS MISSING, AND IF THEY ARE ROLLED OUT TO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, THEN LONDON IS VERY PROUD OF HAVING DEVELOPED THOSE. AS ROBIN SAID, THOSE STANDARDS START TO BECOME ENTRENCHED AND BECOME PART AND PARCEL OF WHAT HAPPENS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING CODE HASN'T BEEN CHANGED YET. SO THOSE THREE THINGS -- THE PEOPLE, THE HOOK, AND THE PLAIN DUMB LUCK ALL COMBINED TOGETHER AT LEAST IN THE CITY OF LONDON TO BRING US VERY MUCH FORWARD AND WHILE WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT THE CITY HAS BEEN ABLE TO GET MANY THINGS DONE EVEN WITHOUT THAT ACT BEING EFFECTED. THANK YOU. (APPLAUSE).

DAVID WINNINGER: JIM JONES.

JIM JONES: BOY, HOW DO I FOLLOW THESE GUYS? GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.

>> GOOD MORNING.

JIM JONES: IF YOU GET LONG PAUSES, LONG BREATHING, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? SQUARE BREATHING. I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS HERE. MY WIFE BETTE AND I ARE -- ACTUALLY I CAN OFTEN READ THE MINDS OF PEOPLE WE ARE APPROACHING. "HERE COMES THAT PAIN IN THE BUTT. THERE IS JIM RIGHT BEHIND HER." (LAUGHTER). BUT SERIOUSLY EXPERIENCES INDICATED THAT A REQUEST WITH NO FOLLOW-UP WITH OFTEN LEADS TO A PROMISE WITH NO ACTION SO WE TRY TO BE PERSISTENT. UNDER THE PRESENT ODA LEGISLATION THERE ARE NO EFFECTIVE ACCESSIBILITY LAWS FOR EITHER THE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR, NOR ARE THERE EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE LAWS FOR THE LEGISLATION THAT DOES EXIST. THE LACK OF THESE REGULATIONS AFFECT MOST OF THE FIELDS THAT ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES MUST FUNCTION IN EVERY DAY. I'LL LIST A NUMBER OF THESE AND COMMENT ON A COUPLE AND THEN HOPEFULLY ALL OF THEM WILL BE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. FIELDS SUCH AS INCOME. ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT IS OFTEN BASED ON WHAT BARRIERS ARE OR A COMPLICATED LEGAL PROCESS TO GAIN ADMISSION PAST THOSE BARRIERS. IT SHOULD BE BASED ON ACTS. WHEN PEOPLE WITH

DISABILITIES AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE HINDERED FROM FULL PARTICIPATION IN THE ECONOMY, IT LIMITS A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROVINCIAL BOTTOM LINE. ONTARIANS ARE STILL WAITING FOR EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION IN THE AREAS OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT, A FAIR PENSION PROGRAM FOR THOSE WITH DISABILITIES. HOUSING IS ANOTHER AREA THAT NEEDS WORK. I HAVE GOT SOME COMMENTS I THINK I WILL SKIP IN THE INTEREST OF BREVITY. INPUT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT. SAME THING. NEEDS COMMENTS. I'LL SKIP THAT IN THE INTEREST OF BREVITY. GRANTS AND PROGRAMS. PRESENTLY THERE ARE SOME GRANTS AND PROGRAMS THAT APPLIES SPECIFICALLY TO IMPAIRABILITIES BUT WHAT IS NEEDED IS AN APPROACH TO DETERMINE WHERE IT COULD BE USED TO IMPROVE THE PROVINCE'S ACCESSIBILITY AND TO REMOVE BARRIERS. THEY SHOULD GO FORWARD ONLY WHEN IF APPLICABLE THEY COMPLY WITH THESE AIMS. FOR EXAMPLE IF A PORTION OF THE GAS TAX IS GIVEN TO MUNICIPALITIES TO SUPPORT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THEN ONLY THOSE MUNICIPALITIES SUPPORTING ADEQUATE PARA TRANSPORTATION SHOULD QUALIFY. ONTARIANS ARE STILL WAITING FOR EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION TO MAKE GOVERNMENT GRANTS AND PROGRAMS INCLUDE WORKABLE ACCESSIBILITY SOLUTION.

PARA TRANSIT IS KIND OF A PET PEEVE OF MINE BUT I THINK WE'LL GET TO DISCUSS IT QUITE A BIT SO MAYBE I'LL GO ON. AND PUBLIC BARRIERS THE SAME. EFFECTIVE MANDATORY COMPLIANCE. UNDER PRESENT LEGISLATION MUNICIPALITIES CAN REQUIRE THAT PREMISES BE ACCESSIBLE BEFORE ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT. THEY RARELY IF EVER DO. THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE CAN BE USED TO COMPEL ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE UNDER DISCRIMINATION LAWS BUT IT IS A LONG AND SOME TIMES EXPENSIVE PROCEDURE AND ONCE A CASE IS WON, ANY SIMILAR CASE HAS TO START FROM SCRATCH. THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS CAN BE USED TO STOP GOVERNMENT FROM DISCRIMINATING ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY BUT, ONCE AGAIN, THIS CAN BE LONG AND COSTLY. IN MOST CASES ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE IS DEPENDENT ON THE GOODWILL OR LACK THEREOF OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED FORTUNATELY IN OUR COMMUNITY WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF GOODWILL. THE LAW ALREADY STATES THAT THERE IS A DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE TO THE POINT OF UNDUE HARDSHIP BUT COMPLIANCE CAN BE COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT. ONE WAY TO ESTABLISH FAIR MANDATORY COMPLIANCE WOULD BE TO CREATE A SEPARATE UNIT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION WITH SUFFICIENT STAFF TO ADDRESS

THESE ISSUES. IT WOULD HAVE LIAISON WITH EVERY PROVINCIAL MINISTRY HAVING RESPONSIBILITY IN THESE AREAS. IN TURN THE MINISTRIES COULD IN A NUMBER OF AREAS TRAIN AND EMPOWER THE CURRENT INSPECTORS TO ENFORCE THESE LAWS. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROPRIATE TIME-FRAMES AND INDUCEMENTS FOR FULFILLING THE OBLIGATIONS, AND AS A LAST RESORT HAVE TO BE PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE. ONTARIANS ARE STILL WAITING FOR EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE FAIR, MANDATORY COMPLIANCE FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE LAWS THAT WILL MAKE OUR PROVINCE ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYBODY. BUT ONTARIANS CAN HAVE HOPE. THERE CAN NOW BE HOPE THAT DELAY IN ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION IN MOST AREAS OF ACCESSIBILITY WILL SOON BE OVER. OUR CURRENT PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IS NEARING THE END OF EXTENSIVE CONSULTATION ON THESE ISSUES AND SHOULD BE WELL INTO DRAFT LEGISLATION. THE NEEDS ARE CLEAR BUT THE SOLUTION ARE NOT SIMPLE. YET WITH EVERY ONE'S DETERMINATION AND COOPERATION ONTARIANS WILL NO LONGER BE STILL WAITING. (APPLAUSE).

DAVID WINNINGER: THANK YOU. OUR PANELISTS HAVE CERTAINLY GIVEN US A LOT TO THINK ABOUT AND I HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT TOO BECAUSE I THOUGHT I WAS PRETTY SHORT BUT APPARENTLY I'M A BARRIER TO PEOPLE READING THE SCREEN SO -- (LAUGHTER) -- THAT I

CAN SEE ALL OF YOU, AND ALSO THE PANELISTS, AND I WAS GOING TO PUT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS TO OUR PANEL AND THE FIRST ONE WAS THIS. WHAT CHANGES WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN A STRENGTHENED ODA? ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO START OFF? STEVE.

STEVE BALCOM: FIRST OF ALL, JIM SUMMED IT UP VERY WELL. DUMB LUCK. AS SILLY AS IT SOUNDS IT WAS TRUE. OVERRIDING -- IN ALL OF THE DISCUSSION THIS MORNING AND IN THE PAST IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM BECAUSE WHILE PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS IS IMPORTANT AND THERE IS A PLACE FOR THAT ONGOING I MIGHT ADD, IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM BEHIND IT TO REINFORCE WHAT THE 11 PRINCIPLES PUT FORTH BY THE ODA IS ALL ABOUT, AND WITHOUT THAT AND THE GUIDELINES TO GO ALONG WITH IT IN REGULATION AND IN LEGISLATION BECAUSE THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN DOING IT THIS LONG ENOUGH REALIZE THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES. SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ISSUE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE BOTH, YOU WON'T HAVE AN EFFECTIVE PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

DAVID WINNINGER: THANKS, STEVE. ROBIN.

ROBIN ARMISTEAD: ALL I WANT TO SAY IS

THE LEGISLATION HAS TO BE MORE SPECIFIC. WHETHER IT'S THROUGH REGULATIONS OR STANDARDS THAT ARE ACROSS THE PROVINCE, WHETHER IT APPLIES TO JUST MUNICIPALITIES TO --WE WERE HOPING THAT THE PROVINCE WOULD TAKE THE LEAD AND SHOW US DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE CAN DO BUT THE STANDARDS HAVE TO BE THE SAME IN ALL MUNICIPALITIES. YOU CAN'T HAVE ACCESSIBLE PARKING LOTS IN ONE MUNICIPALITY AND NO ACCESSIBLE PARKING LOTS IN ANOTHER. YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT THE RULES ARE THE SAME IN DIFFERENT PLACES SO YOU CAN'T ENFORCE SOMETHING IF YOU'RE NOT VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE ENFORCING SO I'M LOOKING TO THE NEW LEGISLATION TO BEING MUCH MORE SPECIFIC.

DAVID WINNINGER: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING, SANDY? JIM.

JIM JONES: I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE AND EVERYTHING SHOULD FOLLOW FROM THAT. PUBLIC BARRIERS IS A PROBLEM BUT IF THEY WERE WORKED ON AND BROUGHT UP TO STANDARDS THAT ARE NEEDED, IF WE HAD THE EFFECTIVE MANDATORY COMPLIANCE THEY WOULD FALL INTO LINE. THE SAME WITH GRANTS AND PROGRAMS. OUR INPUT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WHILE WE HAVE VERY GOOD RAPPORT, IT'S STILL NOT STRONG ENOUGH. OUR WORD IS JUST ADVICE AND THAT'S ALL IT IS. WE NEED SOMETHING A LITTLE STRONGER THAN THAT.

DAVID WINNINGER: ANOTHER QUESTION I

WANTED TO ASK OUR PANEL IS THIS. WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR STRONGER AND TIGHTER COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT CONTROLS, WHAT CAN WE DO TO BETTER EDUCATE THE PUBLIC? AND I'M TALKING RIGHT FROM THE TIME THE PUBLIC, OUR SCHOOL CHILDREN, RIGHT ON UP TO UNIVERSITY AND TRAINING AS PROFESSIONALS. WHAT CAN WE DO TO BETTER EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT, TO HOUSING, TO SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO OVERCOME THEM? DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ON THAT STEVE?

STEVE BALCOM: FUNNY YOU SHOULD ASK THAT! (LAUGHTER). I THINK WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IS THAT YOU KEEP GOING OUT TO THE PUBLIC. HOLD PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS. AND I BELIEVE AS A PERSON ENTERING INTO THIS BUILDING, THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO SEE IS ANOTHER ROUNDTABLE CONSULTATION SO I UNDERSTAND THAT. I CAN AGREE WITH IT BUT THE REALITY IS UNLESS YOU'RE OUT THERE ON A FAIRLY REGULAR BASIS HELPING TO ENSURE THAT THE ISSUES ARE STILL THERE. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE FACE -- AND AGAIN I THINK THIS GOES BACK TO PHYSICAL ACCESS TO BUILDINGS BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUS AND SOMETHING THAT THE PUBLIC CAN CLUE INTO -- THE UNFORTUNATE PART IS THE GENERAL PUBLIC BY AND LARGE WHEN THEY LOOK AROUND CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. WE HAVE GOT ALL THESE

ACCESSIBILITIES. SURELY WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH INDIVIDUAL ISSUES. ... (INAUDIBLE). UNFORTUNATELY IN THIS DAY AND AGE IN 2004 WE STILL GET IT SHOVED RIGHT BACK IN OUR FACE. WHEN YOU HAVE AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT IS MADE UP OF INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS WITH A WIDE VARIETY OF DISABILITIES AND HIDDEN DISABILITIES, YOU HAVE TO PUT YOURSELF OUT THERE ON A DAILY AND ON A MONTHLY BASIS AND DO GO INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, AND I KNOW IT'S NOT EASY, AND AS A PERSON -- ... (INAUDIBLE) ... SOMETHING WE WON HERE IN LONDON -- IT'S NOT EASY, BUT UNTIL WE GET TO THAT POINT WHERE WE DO HAVE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS; WHERE WE DO HAVE STANDARDS. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW CRITICAL IT IS EVEN THOUGH WE ALL HAVE OTHER THINGS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE DOING BUT WE DO THAT.

DAVID WINNINGER: THANK YOU, STEVE. ROBIN. SANDY.

SANDY LEVIN: I THINK PARTIALLY IT'S GOVERNMENT AND I THINK PARTIALLY IT'S EACH OF THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM AND OUTSIDE IN TERMS OF HELPING PEOPLE GETTING BETTER UNDERSTANDING WHAT ROLE AND WHAT RIGHTS PEOPLE WITH VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE DISABILITIES HAVE. I THINK PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW MANY PEOPLE THERE ARE. THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH OF THEIR BUSINESS RELIES ON PEOPLE

WHO ARE CONSUMERS WITH VISIBLE AND HIDDEN DISABILITIES. THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES THROUGH THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND THE EDUCATION SYSTEM WHERE YOUNG PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES ARE NOT BROUGHT INTO THE MAINSTREAM, AND THAT'S BEEN A BIG PART OF HELPING YOUNGER PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENCES ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THEIR LIFE. NOT A DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT PART. AND PART OF, YOU KNOW, THE RESPONSIBILITY IS ON EACH OF US TO RECOGNIZE THE NEEDS OF PEOPLE WITH VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE DISABILITIES. IF PEOPLE ARE BUSINESS OWNERS, TO RECOGNIZE RIGHT OFF THE BAT WITHOUT THE REGULATIONS THAT THEIR ESTABLISHMENT SHOULD BE ACCESSIBLE. THERE ARE A FEW BUSINESSES LIKE THAT. HOW DO THERE BECOME MORE BUSINESSES LIKE THAT? ONE WAY IS TO KNOCK ON THOSE DOORS AS THE BUILDINGS ARE BEING BUILT AND SAYING "HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT ME AS A CONSUMER?" SOMEBODY WHO IS THERE IN A WHEELCHAIR KNOCKS ON THE DOOR AND SAYS, "YOU GUYS ARE BUILDING THIS PLACE OR YOU'RE RENOVATING THIS PLACE. AM I GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME?" PEOPLE JUST DON'T THINK OF IT AS SOMETHING THAT IS PARTED IN PART OF WHAT THEY NEED TO DO AND THE MORE AND MORE THAT IS DONE THROUGH REGULATION IS

GOOD BUT MORE AND MORE THAT IS DONE AS PART OF THE COMMUNITY IS GOING TO GET TO THAT PLACE A LOT SLOWER THAN WE WANT IT TO, BUT IF WE ALWAYS RELY ON THE DUMB LUCK, IT MAY TAKE EVEN LONGER.

>> YEAH.

DAVID WINNINGER: THANK YOU.

JIM JONES: LAST NIGHT BETTE AND I GOT A CHANCE TO TALK TO THE MEMBERS OF THE AAC FROM SAULT STE. MARIE THAT ARE HERE, AND THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A TRAINING PROGRAM FOR THEIR STAFF AND THEY SAID SOMETHING THAT MADE A LOT OF SENSE. A TRAINING PROGRAMMING WHETHER IT'S FOR THE STAFF OR WHETHER IT'S FOR THE PUBLIC, IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE PERSON RIGHT FROM THE DITCH DIGGER RIGHT UP TO THE CEO WILL UNDERSTAND, AND ONE ACC SHOULDN'T BE CHARGED WITH THIS. THEY'RE PROBABLY DOING A GREAT JOB JUST LIKE THEY DO ON EVERYTHING ELSE THEY HAVE EVER TRIED, BUT IT SHOULD BE PROVINCE-WIDE. WE NEED A PROGRAM AND MAYBE THEY CAN GET THE SIOUX. WE NEED A PROGRAM THAT ADDRESSES EVERYBODY AT EVERY LEVEL.

DAVID WINNINGER: IT LOOKS LIKE THE AUDIENCE IS READY TO GET INVOLVED. I OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW ALL YOUR NAMES, BUT I'LL TRY TO KEEP TRACK OF THE ORDER IN WHICH I SEE SOME OF THE HANDS GO UP, BUT IT'S NOT A FLAWLESS

PERFORMANCE. THE GENTLEMAN IN THE RED SHIRT WITH THE STRIPES HAD HIS HAND UP FIRST.

>> GERRARD TAYLOR FROM SAULT STE. MARIE CHAIR AGAIN. THE WAY I SEE IT IF WE REALLY WANT TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF PEOPLE WITH HANDICAPS, WE HAVE TO STOP THE SEGREGATION, OKAY, WHICH MEANS THE AMBULATORY PEOPLE USE THE FRONT DOOR AND THE HANDICAPPED PEOPLE HAVE TO GO AROUND THE BACK DOOR. IF A HANDICAP PERSON WANTS TO USE A WASHROOM, THEY HAVE GOT TO GO 200 FEET DOWN THE HALLWAY AWAY FROM THE AMBULATORY WASHROOMS. I BELIEVE THAT IF WE TALK TO OUR PLANNERS AND OUR ARCHITECTS AND OUR DESIGNERS, THAT WE CAN PUT THESE BARRIER-FREE SYSTEMS RIGHT UNDER THE NOSES OF AMBULATORY PEOPLE AND THEY'LL BE ASKING THEMSELVES WHEN THEY SEE THESE SYSTEMS "WHY IS THIS SO BIG?" "WHY IS THIS LIKE THIS?", BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT SYSTEM WILL BE THERE AND IT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR A HANDICAPPED PERSON RIGHT IN THE SAME SPACES AS THE AMBULATORY PEOPLE. IT WILL CUT DOWN ON THE COST AND IT WILL BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE FOR EVERYBODY OVERALL.

DAVID WINNINGER: YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT. WOULD THE PANEL LIKE TO RESPOND?

ROBIN ARMISTEAD: THE FADS -- OUR

ACCESSIBILITY DESIGN STANDARDS -- WERE DESIGNED WITH UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN MIND. THE SAME CONCEPT. WHAT'S GOOD FOR SOMEBODY IN A WHEELCHAIR SHOULD ALSO BE GOOD FOR SOMEBODY WITH A HOCKEY BAG OR BABY CARRIAGE OR ME WHO WANTS MORE SPACE TO WALK THROUGH THE DOOR.

DAVID WINNINGER: WE'LL HEAR FROM THIS LADY AND THEN THE GENTLEMAN IN THE RED JACKET.

>> TERESA GRIFFIN. I HAVE TWO POINTS TO MAKE. ONE IS TO DRAW EVERYONE'S ATTENTION TO A DISABILITY IN THE BUILDING THAT HAS TO DO WITH CARDIAC DISORDERS. THERE ARE A BUNCH OF DISORDERS OUT THERE. WHEN PEOPLE ARE REALLY INVISIBLE BECAUSE THEY'RE SIX FEET UNDER, THESE ARE DISABILITIES THAT YOU DROP DEAD IF THERE ISN'T A DEFIBRILLATOR AROUND OR AN AMBULANCE, THEN YOU'RE OUT OF LUCK, AND IN THE CITY OF LONDON THERE IS A BIG FUNDING OF AMBULANCE SERVICES, A 2% RESCUE RATE WITH PEOPLE WITH THIS. IT COULD BE MUCH HIGHER. SO I WOULD ASK PEOPLE LIKE ROBIN AND EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO BE AWARE THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS. IT COSTS A COUPLE OF THOUSAND OF DOLLARS BUT THEY'RE WELL WORTH IT. PEOPLE SHOULD BE TRAINED IN CPR WHO WORK IN PUBLIC PLACES.

THANK YOU.

DAVID WINNINGER: ANY RESPONSE FROM THE PANEL TO THAT ONE? GOOD POINT. THE GENTLEMAN IN THE RED JACKET.

>> ON A SIMILAR NOTE, ONE THING I HAVEN'T HEARD MENTIONED TODAY AS FAR AS DISABILITIES VISIBLE OR UNSEEN ARE PEOPLE WITH ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES. I HAVE HEARD ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, PHYSICAL DISABILITIES BUT NOTHING ABOUT ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES WHICH SOME TIMES CAN BE JUST AS BAD OR WORSE THAN A PHYSICAL ONE. WHAT I WANTED TO ASK IS TOUCHING ON SOMETHING THAT MR. LEVIN SAID. THE COMPASSION PART AND THE RIGHT THING TO DO. UP UNTIL FOR A YEAR AGO -- SORRY -- FOR THE PAST YEAR WHILE I HAVE BEEN ON ODSP I HAVE BEEN RECEIVING THE COVERAGE OF TRANSPORTATION NOT ONLY FOR THE COST OF TO AND FROM MEDICALS, DOCTORS' TREATMENTS, BUT JUST IN GENERAL SO I CAN GET OUT. AS OF JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO FOR WHATEVER REASON THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT HAS DECIDED THAT PEOPLE WHO CANNOT ACTIVELY LOOK FOR WORK WHO ARE RECEIPT OF ODSP WILL NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT COVERAGE WHICH MEANS I AM NOW HOUSEBOUND. THEY SAID THEY

WOULD ONLY GIVE ME ENOUGH MONEY TO COVER THE TRIPS TO AND FROM MY NECESSARY MEDICAL DOCTORS' TREATMENTS PER MONTH. WHY WOULDN'T THE RIGHT THING BE FOR THE CITY TO TAKE OVER AND MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE OF THAT COST OR TAKE IT OVER ALL TOGETHER?

DAVID WINNINGER: I COULD SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT BUT I'M GOING TO TURN TO OUR PANEL FIRST. SANDY OR ROBIN.

SANDY LEVIN: PART OF THE ANSWER TO THAT, IT'S AN ONGOING POLITICAL ISSUE BETWEEN PROVINCE AND MUNICIPALITIES. THE PROVINCE IS VERY HAPPY TO DOWNLOAD RESPONSIBILITY TO MUNICIPALITIES. MUNICIPALITIES AREN'T ALWAYS HAPPY TO TAKE THEM UP. I THINK THE OTHER PART OF THE PROBLEM IS MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE DON'T DO DETAILS NECESSARILY AND THEY DON'T -- THEY DON'T KNOW THAT THEIR OWN LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS HAVE MADE THAT KIND OF CHANGE TO AN INDIVIDUAL'S LIFE SO --

>> IT'S NOT JUST ME. I'M SURE IT'S MORE THAN --

SANDY LEVIN: IT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE REPRESENT BUT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENED UNLESS YOU TELL THEM, AND YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED WITH THE REACTION YOU GET FROM TIME TO TIME BY TALKING TO A MEMBER OF THE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE

AND SAYING, "DO YOU KNOW WHAT JUST HAPPENED?", AND THEY MAY LEGITIMATELY TELL, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T AND THEY MAY TAKE ACTION ON IT, AND ENOUGH PEOPLE WHO RUN INTO THAT SITUATION CALL EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT YOU MAY SEE A CHANGE AND THEN YOU WORK ON YOUR MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATIVES AND SAY, "YOU KNOW WHAT THE PROVINCE DID? ARE YOU WILLING TO PICK THIS UP?"

STEVE BALCOM: IF I MAY, DAVID, JUST TO PICK UP ON SOMETHING SANDY SAID? THERE ARE A NUMBER OF US IN THIS ROOM THAT ARE INVOLVED IN A NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS CRITICAL WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ISSUE LIKE ODSP, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF US THAT HAVE SERVED ON ... (INAUDIBLE) ... LEGAL SERVICES OR PROVINCIALLY ARCH WHOSE ROLE IT IS TO DEAL WITH SPECIFIC TEST CASES AND THEY KNOW THAT THEY'RE INVOLVED ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS AT THE LOCAL AND THE REGIONAL LEVEL DEALING WITH THE REGULATORY SIDE OF ODSP, AND THAT'S SLIGHTLY WHAT I WOULD BRING EARLIER ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE SIDE AND THE REGULATION SIDE. YOU CAN'T DO ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER, AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT ONE NOT ASSUME THAT SOMEONE KNOWS OR PRESUME THAT THEY KNOW. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I AND OTHERS HAVE KNOWN OVER THE YEARS - JUST BECAUSE YOU ASSUME THAT SOMEBODY SHOULD KNOW AIN'T NECESSARILY THE CASE.

>> I AGREE TO THAT BUT I'M JUST SAYING, FOR EXAMPLE, A BIG ISSUE IN THE PAPER FOR LONDON NOT TOO LONG AGO WAS --

>> MICROPHONE.

>> -- EVERYBODY WAS COMPLAINING WHY IS THE CITY SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY ON THE 150TH BIRTHDAY? YES, CELEBRATING THE 150TH BIRTHDAY IS AN IMPORTANT THING, BUT WOULDN'T THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS HELP OUT THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY THAT NEED THE HELP THE MOST?

DAVID WINNINGER: COULD I JUST RESPOND TO THAT FOR A MOMENT AND THEN I SEE SOMEONE'S HAND UP? ONE THING YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND -- AND I KNOW THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE AN ENTIRELY SATISFACTORY ANSWER TO YOU -- BUT THE CITY BASICALLY HAVE ONE SOURCE OF REVENUE AND THAT'S THE PROPERTY TAX AND IT'S A REGRESSIVE FORM OF TAXATION. WE CHARGE FEES HERE AND THERE. WE HAVE SOME REVENUE FROM LICENSING FEES. WE CANNOT RUN A DEFICIT. THE PROVINCE ON THE OTHER HAND HAS MANY SOURCES OF REVENUE. MANY FORMS OF TAXATION. THEY DO RUN A DEFICIT SO IF THE PROVINCE SUDDENLY SAYS WE'RE NOT GOING TO COVER THE COST OF THIS ANY MORE, IF THE CITIES PICK UP THE SLACK WHICH WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DO EVERY TIME THE PROVINCE DECIDES TO ADVOCATE ITS RESPONSIBILITY, WE AS A CITY WOULD GO BROKE QUITE FRANKLY.

NOW I AGREE WITH YOU. I VOTED AGAINST THE CENTENNIAL FUNDING THAT WAS ASKED FOR AND PRECISELY BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD TO CUT BACK ON BUDGETS FOR A LOT OF OUR COMMUNITY AGENCIES THAT PROVIDE FRONTLINE HELP IN TERMS OF ACCOMMODATION, FOOD, SOCIAL SERVICES TO THE MOST VULNERABLE, BUT NONETHELESS THIS IS A BATTLE THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON WITH THE PROVINCE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THEY CAN SIMPLY DOWNLOAD THE COST OF THESE SERVICES AND THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE MUNICIPALITY BUT WE'RE REALLY NOT THAT WELL POSITIONED TO CREATE THE KIND OF SOCIAL SAFETY NET IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SENIOR LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. I BETTER MOVE ON TO --

>> WE HAVE GOT ONE OVER HERE.

DAVID WINNINGER: A LADY AT THE BACK ALSO HAD HER HAND UP FOR A LONG TIME.

>> I WANTED AN ISSUE RELATED TO DEAFNESS AND THE ISSUE OF INTERPRETATION, AND I THINK THE TIME RIGHT NOW IS GOOD TO BRING THAT TO LIGHT AND BRING THAT TO STRENGTHEN ODA WHAT IT MEANS TO ME. THE WORK SITUATION IN THE FIELD OF PSYCHOLOGY IS THE AREA THAT I WORK IN AND PREVIOUS TO THAT I WAS WORKING WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD. I CAME ACROSS AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT BUT THEY WERE UNABLE TO PROVIDE INTERPRETATION FOR ME SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO FUNDING IN THE BUDGET THAT WOULD REQUIRE -- WOULD BE ABLE TO COVER

THAT EXPENSE SO THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO PAY FOR MY SERVICES FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO BE TOTALLY ACCESSIBLE. LATER I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WERE SOME MONEY THAT I COULD USE PERSONALLY TO USE FOR INTERPRETATION. OFTEN I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WERE REFERRALS PUT IN TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE HIGHER ABOVE PEOPLE THAT WOULD LOOK INTO GETTING AN INTERPRETER FOR ME. I ALWAYS GOT THE RESPONSE THAT THEY WERE WAITING FOR TO HEAR BACK FROM SOMEBODY. NOW WHEN I WENT TO THE MINISTER OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES FOR A JOB INTERVIEW, I PRESENTED THE IDEA THAT IF I WERE HIRED AS THE -- HIRED AS SOMEONE TO WORK FOR THEM, THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR INTERPRETERS FOR ME AND THEY WERE WILLING TO DO THAT AND I THINK THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IT SHOWS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MODEL PRECEDENT SET THAT PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAF REQUIRE INTERPRETATION, AND THAT MEANS ANYONE IN THE BUSINESS SECTOR, IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR OR SOMEONE WORKING FOR GOVERNMENT, ANYONE WORKING ANYWHERE PROFESSIONALLY IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL AT THEIR JOB, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO NEED INTERPRETERS IF THERE IS A DEAF PERSON THAT USES SIGN LANGUAGE. SO THOSE ARE SOMETHING THAT IS RELATED

TO DEAF NEEDS AS IT RELATES TO EMPLOYMENT AND I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR MYSELF AS A STRENGTHENED ODA.

DAVID WINNINGER: THOSE ARE EXCELLENT POINTS. (APPLAUSE). WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATIVES ON THE PANEL, BUT PERHAPS SOME OF OUR PANELISTS CAN RESPOND.

SANDY LEVIN: I HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND THAT UNDER THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE THERE IS A DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE FOR UNDUE HARDSHIP AND ANY EMPLOYER IS GOING TO RUN INTO THAT SITUATION. I AM SURE THAT WAS THOUGHT OF.

DAVID WINNINGER: DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING?

>> YES. AGAIN TRY THAT THROUGH THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, BUT IT'S A COMPLEX PROCESS, AND THE TIME INVOLVED IS LENGTHY. JUST AS MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD WHEN I WAS ASKING FOR INTERPRETATION I WAS GIVEN, YOU KNOW, ALWAYS THIS DELAY IN PROCESS. I WAS ALWAYS ASKING WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND THE PROCESS WAS ALWAYS BEING DELAYED. THAT THEY HAD BEEN CONTACTING REFERRING TO OTHER PEOPLE HIGHER ABOVE AND STILL NOT GETTING A RESPONSE. I THINK THE ISSUE IS STILL NOT THERE.

>> MY NAME IS JEFF WILMONT (PHOEN) AND I HAVE A COMMENT AS WELL. MANY YEARS AGO I WORKED IN MILTON AT A SCHOOL AND I WAS WORKING WITH DEAF-BLIND AS AN INTERVENOR. I WAS UNDER VRS AT THE TIME AND VRS IS COVERING MY SERVICES. THEY WERE PAYING FOR ME TO BE AN INTERVENE NOR. THEN VRS FOLDED AND THE FUNDING -- IT WAS WONDERED WHERE THE FUNDING WOULD COME FROM NEXT AND I REMEMBER THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION - THEY WERE TOLD THEY WERE GOING TO BE COVERING THAT EXPENSE BUT THEY SAID THAT THAT PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAPPEN AND THEY SAID NO THAT I SHOULD PROBABLY GO AHEAD AND ASK THE COMMUNITY OF MILTON TO SEE IF THEY WOULD COVER THE EXPENSE, AND WHEN I WENT TO MILTON, THE COMMUNITY, THEY SAID WELL MAYBE YOU SHOULD GO TO THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND ASK THEM SO, YEAH, I'M BEING REFERRED FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. (LAUGHTER) SO AT THIS POINT I'M PAYING FOR ALL OF THIS TRAVELLING AROUND MYSELF, AND WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE PROGRAM FOR THE PEOPLE WITH DEAF-BLIND ISSUES THAT I WAS SERVICING. MILTON SCHOOL EVENTUALLY DID PAY ME AS AN ASSISTANT BUT IT CAME OUT AS A LOWER PAY FOR ME. THAT WAS SOMETHING UNFORTUNATELY THAT I HAD TO ACCEPT. IT'S A SAD SITUATION WHEN THERE ISN'T ANY FUNDING TO PAY FOR INTERPRETING SERVICES OR INTERVENTION SERVICES. JUST TO GO OFF TOPIC A BIT,

INTERPRETING SERVICES JUST AS JONATHAN, THE PERSON THAT SPOKE EARLIER, CHS HAS INTERPRETING SERVICES AVAILABLE, BUT I BELIEVE THERE ARE ONLY TWO INTERPRETERS SERVICING A DEAF COMMUNITY THAT IS QUITE LARGE, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE HAS BEEN OFTEN PEOPLE WITHOUT SERVICE AND THAT IF YOU'RE NOT CALLING TO BOOK INTERPRETING SERVICES WITHOUT TWO MONTHS NOTICE, YOU PROBABLY WILL BE WITHOUT AROUND ONE MONTH'S NOTICE, THAT YOU PROBABLY BE WITHOUT SERVICES SO YOU'RE WALKING INTO APPOINTMENTS WITHOUT AN INTERPRETER. WHAT THEY SAY IS CHS OFTEN SAYS THE PRIORITY FOR INTERPRETATION AND WHO GETS THE SERVICES IS LISTED ON A PRIORITY BASIS AND THAT WOULD BE SAY, PERHAPS, FOR JOB INTERVIEWS AND I'M THINKING THAT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU WANT TO GO FOR SOME KIND OF ENJOYABLE OR LEISURELY EVENT, SAY, A GRADUATION OR A WEDDING. YOU'RE OFTEN TOLD THERE AREN'T ANY INTERPRETERS FOR THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE GIVEN OTHER PRIORITIES, AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S A VERY -- FOR MYSELF I'M OFTEN STUCK WITHOUT INTERPRETERS AND I THINK THAT WHEN I HAVE BEEN IN SITUATIONS WHERE I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET AN INTERPRETER THROUGH CHS, AND I FOUND MY OWN, I OFTEN HAVE BEEN TOLD THERE ISN'T ANY FUNDING. SO, AGAIN, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE MY NAME IS JEFF WILMONT. JOHN CHAPMAN IS THE GENTLEMAN BESIDE ME.

DAVID WINNINGER: THANK YOU. (APPLAUSE). I HOPE YOU HAVE MADE YOUR CONCERNS TO THE LOCAL POLITICIANS AND AS WELL AS PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATIVES.

ROBIN ARMISTEAD: I KNOW THAT THE CITY OF LONDON HAS JUST PUT IN PLACE AN ACCOMMODATION POLICY AND I THINK YOU WILL START TO SEE CHANGES. THE QUESTION IS DOES THE ACCOMMODATION POLICY ADDRESS THE USE OF INTERPRETERS? I'M NOT 100% SURE AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WILL CHECK OUT WHEN I GO BACK AND I THINK THAT YOU'RE SEEING NOW THAT THE HOSPITAL MEDICAL COMMUNITY AND THE EDUCATION COMMUNITY, MUNICIPALITIES HAVE TO HAVE ADVISORY COMMITTEES. YOU MAY SEE SIMILAR INITIATIVES, BUT I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT'S A REAL PROBLEM FOR US RIGHT NOW THAT THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH INTERPRETERS TO GO AROUND, AND I THROW THE QUESTION BACK TO YOU. CAN THERE BE DEGREES OF TRAINING FOR INTERPRETERS? LIKE A NUMBER OF US HAVE TAKEN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION CLASSES BUT WE WOULDN'T BE QUALIFIED AS A QUALIFIED INTERPRETER, BUT MAYBE THERE WOULD BE WAYS TO USE OUR SERVICES IN A LIMITED CAPACITY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION IS BUT THERE DEFINITELY -- WE DEFINITELY KNOW THERE ISN'T ENOUGH INTERPRETERS BECAUSE WE TRIED TO BRING AN INTERPRETER INTO OUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE BUT WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE

FACT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BE TAKING THAT INTERPRETER AWAY FROM SOMEBODY WHO REALLY NEEDS THAT SERVICE.

DAVID WINNINGER: THANK YOU, ROBIN. THE LADY AT THE BACK IN THE RED.

>> SHIRLEY ... (INAUDIBLE) ...

DAVID WINNINGER: SPEAK UP. WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

>> THANK YOU. NOW IT'S ON. I WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT. AS AN ETERNAL OPTIMIST I HAD THOUGHT THAT DALTON MCGUINTY WOULD LOOK AT WHAT THE CONSERVATIVES REVERSED AND PERHAPS REVERSE IT AGAIN AND GO BACK AND LOOK AT THINGS LIKE A 20% CUT IN WELFARE AND MAYBE REINSTATE WHAT THEY HAD TAKEN AWAY, AND I MENTIONED ALREADY THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY AND SUCH BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE NEED PUT BACK IN PLACE THAT WILL SERVICE ALL OF ONTARIO. PUT THE RAMP BACK AT QUEEN'S PARK. ALL THESE THINGS THAT MADE US PART OF SOCIETY WERE TAKEN AWAY, AND I WOULD LIKE THE LIBERALS TO PUT THAT BACK. MAKE US PART OF SOCIETY AGAIN. GIVE US THE RESPECT THAT WE NEED TO BE PART OF EVERYBODY ELSE. WE NEED THIS, PLEASE.

DAVID WINNINGER: LET'S HOPE YOUR MESSAGE ISN'T LOST.

THERE IS A LADY AT THE BACK OVER ON THIS SIDE THAT I SAW WITH HER HAND UP. COULD YOU PUT YOUR HAND UP AGAIN? THERE SHE IS.

>> THANK YOU. I'M FROM YORK REGION. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANTED TO ECHO. FIRST OF ALL AROUND WHAT ROBIN SAID. I AGREE WITH THE NEED FOR WHERE MUNICIPALITIES ARE CONCERNED, THE NEED FOR A MULTI-YEAR -- OPPORTUNITIES FOR A MULTI-YEAR PLANNING BECAUSE THE YEAR-TO-YEAR PLAN DOESN'T ALWAYS ALLOW US TO DO THE BIG THINGS THAT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND THERE'S A STRUGGLE THERE AROUND THAT. I'M ALSO -- ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE ALSO BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT ARE ENFORCEMENT IN STANDARDS, AND MUNICIPALITIES REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT WANTS SO THAT WE CAN DO IT IN A WAY THAT IS STANDARDIZED ACROSS THE PROVINCE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU'RE -- WE'RE GETTING DIFFERENT RESULTS AND THINGS ARE NOT AS GOOD AS THEY COULD BE. THE ONE THING THAT I WANT TO SAY CONNECTED TO THAT THOUGH IS IT CAN'T BE SO TIGHT THAT IT'S A COOKIE CUTTER APPROACH BECAUSE THE NEEDS OF BIG MUNICIPALITIES ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE NEEDS OF SMALL MUNICIPALITIES AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS WHICH HAVE THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES ALSO THAT THEY'RE WORKING WITH HAVE

DIFFERENT NEEDS BUT THE -- BEING CLEAR ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR US. IN CONNECTION TO THAT, IF THE GOVERNMENT COULD CONSULT -- CONTINUE TO CONSULT WITH MUNICIPALITIES, THAT WOULD BE REALLY USEFUL. I USED TO WORK FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT AND I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD THE NEEDS OF THE MUNICIPALITIES UNTIL I WORKED IN A MUNICIPALITY AND YOU DON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU'RE IN IT. ANOTHER THING THAT I WOULD ASK BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE FROM THE PROVINCE HERE IS WE ARE -- A NUMBER OF US ARE HOPING THAT YOU WILL ALIGN -- AND I THINK ROBIN MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS -- ALIGN THE PLANS ACCORDING TO THE BUDGET YEAR -- OUR BUDGET YEAR BECAUSE FOR US YORK REGION ALSO WILL NOT BE PUTTING OUT ITS PLAN ON SEPTEMBER THE 30TH, AND THERE'S A GOOD REASON FOR THAT, AND THAT IS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES ARE PART OF OUR BUDGET AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING THAT IS JUST OUT THERE WITHOUT REGIONAL COUNCIL APPROVAL THAT CAN BE KNOCKED DOWN OR PICKED UP AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE IT REAL AND WE WANT TO BLEND IT IN. INCENTIVES ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND THERE IS THE ISSUE OF FUNDING, OF COURSE, BUT RECOGNITION IS A GOOD THING. ONE THING I DO WANT TO SAY IS THAT IT

WAS REALLY HELPFUL FOR THE ACCESSIBILITY DIRECTORATE AND THE ACCESSIBILITY COUNCIL TO COME TO YORK REGION. IT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MUCH THAT PUSHED THINGS AHEAD FOR US JUST HAVING YOU THERE AND PEOPLE FEELING THAT THERE WAS AN INTEREST FROM THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN WHAT WE WERE DOING. THERE'S THE PUBLIC EDUCATION. AND THE LAST THING THAT I WANTED TO COMMENT WAS THE CONCERN ABOUT LEADING BY EXAMPLE BY THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN ELECTION LAST YEAR -- WAS IT JUST LAST YEAR? IT FELT LIKE IT --AND THE PLANS FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT DIDN'T COME OUT. THAT WAS QUITE DISHEARTENING BECAUSE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, WE ALSO HAD ELECTIONS, AND HAD TO GO FORWARD AND SO -- AND SO IT MIGHT BE USEFUL IF THE ACCESSIBILITY DIRECTORATE CAN HAVE THE STAFF TO BE ABLE TO -- THE POWER TO BE ABLE TO MAKE OTHER MINISTRIES WORK WITH THEM AND MAYBE -- I THINK I HEARD SOMEONE SAY MAKE THAT PART OF THE LEGISLATION. ENABLING LEGISLATION OF SOME SORT. YES.

DAVID WINNINGER: SORRY. DID YOU WANT TO CONTINUE?

>> SO THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. LEAD BY EXAMPLE. AND ALSO HAVING MORE POWER FOR THE ACCESSIBILITY DIRECTORATE TO MAKE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES --OTHER MINISTRIES WORK WITH THEM.

DAVID WINNINGER: THANK YOU. I WAS GOING TO ASK JIM FOR ONE OF THE SMALLER MUNICIPALITIES -- IF YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE FOR YOUR REMARKS.

JIM JONES: NO. I DON'T THINK I DO. I KNOW THAT OUR ACCESSIBILITY CHAIRMAN IS SITTING OVER THERE AND I KNOW HE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS.

DAVID WINNINGER: COULD YOU PUT UP YOUR HANDS SO THEY KNOW WHERE YOU ARE? IS THERE A MICROPHONE? AND THEN --

DOUG MORTON: YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES LEFT IN THIS SESSION.

DAVID WINNINGER: WE'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF MINUTES IF SOMEONE CAN GET YOU A MICROPHONE.

>> I'M THE CO-CHAIR OF THE WOODSTOCK ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WOODSTOCK, AND AS I AM SITTING HERE TODAY I'M TRYING TO THINK THE POLITICAL SIDE, THINK OF THE ACCESSIBILITY SIDE OF IT FROM OUR COMMITTEES, AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY REALLY I THINK TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THERE REALLY ARE TWO SIDES TO THIS WHOLE THING WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH ACCESSIBILITY IN THE MUNICIPALITY AND WE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER, AND WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER, BUT IT'S A BIG EDUCATION PROCESS, AND IT HAS TO START WITH US

FULLY UNDERSTANDING OUR SITUATIONS AND THEN BEING ABLE TO GET THAT INFORMATION OVER TO THE POLITICIANS THAT ARE IN THE MUNICIPALITIES AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE STAFFING THE MUNICIPALITY BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THINGS EITHER AND WE RUN INTO ISSUES ALL THE TIME WHERE IF SOMEONE REALLY HAD A GOOD FEELING ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON, THEY PROBABLY LOOK AT THE WHOLE THING DIFFERENTLY, SO EDUCATION IS A BIG KEY TO THIS WHOLE THING AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED AND BRINGING PEOPLE UP TO SPEED AND BRINGING NEW PEOPLE UP TO SPEED AS WELL, SO YOU BRING NEW EMPLOYEES INTO THE CITY, THAT THEY HAVE SOME METHOD OF BEING TRAINED TO THE SENSITIVITY ISSUES AND THEY LOOK FOR THINGS. AS WE SIT AS AN ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE AND TRY TO DETERMINE WHAT OUR NEEDS ARE IN THE CITY, WHY IS IT JUST UP TO US? SO WE CAN WORK TOGETHER AND TRY AND SOLVE THEM. THE REALITY IS WE DON'T RECOGNIZE IT. WE WALK BY IT AND DON'T SEE IT AND THAT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN TRAINED. JIM SAID EARLIER ABOUT THE SAULT STE. MARIE AAC WORKING ON A PROGRAM TO HELP TRAIN EVERYBODY INVOLVED. BOY, THAT NEEDS TO BE MOVED FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN GET THESE ISSUES DEALT WITH. MORE EDUCATION THAN I THINK THAN ANYTHING ELSE. VERY FEW PEOPLE OUT THERE IF THEY'RE FULLY UP TO SPEED ON THINGS WANT TO PROCEED WITH

THINGS. THEY JUST DON'T KNOW HOW.

DAVID WINNINGER: THANKS VERY MUCH. IF WE CAN JUST ALLOW THIS GENTLEMAN. UNFORTUNATELY HE IS GOING TO BE THE LAST SPEAKER BECAUSE A HIGHER POWER HAS DECREED. (LAUGHTER).

>> THANK YOU. THIS QUESTION IS FOR SANDY. SANDY, IS HANDICAPPED PARKING A MUNICIPAL ISSUE OR IS IT AN ISSUE OF THE LANDLORD? I ASK FOR YOUR THOUGHTS BECAUSE I KNOW THE LOCATION WEST OF THE MALL PIZZA PIZZA, BY TIM HORTONS THERE, IN THAT MALL I WAS THERE LAST WEEK. ... (INAUDIBLE) ... HANDICAPPED RAMP. MANY OF YOU DON'T KNOW IS ACTUALLY IN A HANDICAPPED SPOT AND IF THERE IS A CAR IN THE HANDICAPPED SPOT, THEREFORE, YOU CANNOT ACCESS UP TO THE SIDEWALK TO GET INTO THE STORE TO GIVE YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY TO THE MERCHANT TO BUY THEIR PRODUCT. GO FIGURE! THE BUSINESS IS LOSING MONEY AND IF THE BUSINESS -- THE MANAGEMENT MALL IS AT FAULT. TO ME THERE SHOULD BE SOME BODY OF SOME COMMITTEE OR SOMETHING THAT SHOULD SEND HIM OR HER A LETTER EXPLAINING THAT THEY'RE LOSING OUT ON ALL KINDS OF BUSINESS. AND, NUMBER TWO, WITH MAKING IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF TO ACCESS PROVIDERS.

SANDY LEVIN: IN THE SHORT-TERM ONE OF THE ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE IS TOUCH BASE WITH STEVE OR

BONNIE FROM THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE HERE IN LONDON. MY UNDERSTANDING FROM ROBIN IS THE COMMUNITY DOES SEND LETTERS OUT TO LANDLORDS LIKE THAT. I'M NOT CLEAR OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE AUTHORITY ON THIS BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S MANDATED UNDER THE BUILDING CODE OR IT'S ONE OF THOSE KIND OF OPTIONAL THINGS THAT'S STILL OUT THERE, BUT WHAT YOU HIGHLIGHT IS THAT THE CHANGES TO THE ODA HAVE TO ALSO INCLUDE CHANGES TO OTHER PIECES OF LEGISLATION AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THE BUILDING CODE SO THAT IT'S CLEARLY LAID OUT THINGS AS YOU HAVE EXPLAINED THEM ARE MANDATED SO THAT THERE ISN'T ANY QUESTION SO THAT WHEN A PARKING LOT GETS BUILT, THE HANDICAPPED SPOTS ARE THERE IN PARTICULAR LOCATIONS IN RELATION TO THE BUSINESS SO THAT THE BUILDER WHEN THEY START KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO END UP WITH. I HOPE THAT HELPS.

DAVID WINNINGER: I HOPE YOU'LL JOIN ME IN THANKING OUR PANELISTS (APPLAUSE) AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU. IT WAS A VERY LIVELY DISCUSSION SESSION. YOU HAVE AN HOUR FOR LUNCH AND NETWORKING AND THERE'S A FURTHER ANNOUNCEMENT.

LORIN MACDONALD: YES, WE HAVE GOT A COUPLE OF ANNOUNCEMENTS REGARDING LUNCH.

THE FIRST THING IS IT IS AN HOUR SO WE NEED TO CONVENE AT 1:15. ANYBODY WHO REGISTERED IN ADVANCE FOR THIS FORUM WHO HAD DIETARY NEEDS, YOU NEED TO SEE MICHELLE WHO IS AT THE BACK OF THE ROOM IN THE RED SHIRT AND MICHELLE HAS YOUR MEAL FOR YOU THAT ADDRESSES YOUR NEEDS, AND THERE ARE TABLES AND CHAIRS UP ON THE SECOND FLOOR IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THE ELEVATOR UP THERE IF IT'S A LITTLE CRAMPED DOWN HERE FOR YOU. WE'LL SEE YOU IN AN HOUR. HAVE A GOOD LUNCH.

-- LUNCH AT 12:16 P.M.

GERALD PARKER: GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. IF WE CAN HAVE YOUR ATTENTION AND HAVE EVERYBODY PROCEED BACK INTO THE AUDITORIUM. WE'RE READY TO PROCEED. WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME. WE HAVE GOT 15 MINUTES TO TELL YOU WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW AND ANYBODY THAT KNOWS ME, KNOWS I HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING IN 15 MINUTES! (LAUGHTER).

-- RESUMED AT 1:21 P.M.

GERALD PARKER: OKAY EVERYBODY. IF I CAN HAVE EVERYONE'S ATTENTION. DID EVERYONE ENJOY LUNCH? IT WAS GOOD, WASN'T IT? MMMMHHH, I LOVE GOOD FOOD! OKAY. MY NAME IS GERALD PARKER AND I

AM THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF BEYOND ACT INTERNATIONAL. ON YOUR AGENDA IT SAYS THAT I WAS WORKING WITH THE CITY OF BRAMPTON, WHICH I WAS, BUT THAT CONTRACT IS OVER AND I'M BACK OF BEYOND ABILITY INTERNATIONAL. I'M HERE TODAY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND HOW IMPORTANT THEY ARE TO PROVIDING ACCESSIBILITY IN YOUR MUNICIPALITY AND WITHIN YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE. IS THIS ALL RIGHT? CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM? EVERYONE CAN SEE ME THAT NEEDS TO? I'LL TRY TO KEEP THE MIKE AS CLOSE TO MY MOUTH AS POSSIBLE AND TRY TO KEEP UP FRONT HERE WHERE I'M SLIGHTLY ELEVATED. OKAY. I HAVE A POWER POINT PRESENTATION UP ON THE DISPLAY THIS AFTERNOON AND IT'S ENTITLED "STILL WAITING: A FORUM FOR MOVING AHEAD. ENABLING, FUNDING AND EMPOWERING ACCESSIBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE". WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE STRONG ODA. ADVISORY COMMITTEES, MEMBERS OF STAFF OR THE MINISTRY THEMSELVES, WE ARE WAITING FOR A STRONG AND ENFORCEABLE ODA. WE UNDERSTAND THAT GREAT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE. WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY IN A COUPLE OF YEARS BUT STILL AS FAR AS THIS DISCUSSION IS CONCERNED, THERE ARE NEW BARRIERS STILL BEING CONSTRUCTED BEFORE OUR VERY EYES TODAY AND WHY IS THIS?

WELL BECAUSE THE ODA DOES NOT EFFECTIVELY OR ADEQUATELY FACTOR FUND AND ENFORCE ACCESSIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I MEAN BY THAT TERM. ANYTHING THAT YOU USE TO GET AROUND WHETHER IT'S THE WATER FROM YOUR TAP, WHETHER IT'S THE PIPES THAT BRING THAT WATER OR TAKE THAT WATER AWAY, OR WHETHER IT'S THE SIDEWALK, TRAFFIC INTERSECTION, OR WHETHER IT'S A COMMUNITY FACILITY OR PLAYGROUND INFRASTRUCTURE, THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF INFRASTRUCTURAL BARRIER. ONE IS AN EXISTING ONE. HISTORICAL BUILDING, EXISTING PARKING LOT. THIS IS EXISTING ASSETS THAT THE MUNICIPALITY OR THE AGENCY MAY HAVE. NEW BARRIERS ARE THINGS THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED TODAY OR THE DAY BEFORE. THEY ARE THINGS THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED. THIS PICTURE UP HERE -- I HAVE TWO PICTURES UP ON THE BOARD. ONE AT THE LEFT SIDE ON A PARKING SPOT THAT DOESN'T HAVE A CURB SPOT ON AN OLD HISTORICAL BUILDING. THE SECOND PICTURE IS A BRAND NEW BUILDING THAT HAS BETWEEN A SIX AND A THREE INCH THRESHOLD AT THE FRONT WALKWAY CONNECTION. THE REASON WHY I'M TELLING YOU IS THIS -- THE PLANNING ACT GOVERNS THE SIDEWALK. THE BUILDING CODE GOVERNS THE BUILDING. THE ODA SAYS THAT BUILDING SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE BUT BECAUSE THE PLANNING ACT AND THE

BUILDING CODE ARE NOT CONJOINED, AND THEY'RE GENERALLY GOVERNED BY TWO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS UNDER TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF LEGISLATION, THINGS LIKE THIS OCCUR. NEW BARRIERS. AMENDMENT. THIS DISCUSSION TODAY IS ONLY ABOUT NEW BARRIERS. FORGET ABOUT THE EXISTING BARRIERS. I CAN'T DEAL WITH THAT ONE RIGHT NOW. WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT NEW BARRIERS. WHAT WE CAN DO TO RESOLVE THEM. HOW DO WE DO THAT? NEW BARRIERS CAN RESULT BY GOOD EDUCATION. I HEARD THIS MORNING A VERY GOOD CONVERSATION HAVING WITH THE CHAIR OF WOODSTOCK ADVISORY COMMITTEE ABOUT EDUCATION. ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE. EDUCATION WORKS BETTER THAN LEGISLATION BUT UNFORTUNATELY SOME TIMES YOU NEED LEGISLATION BECAUSE IT'S WHAT CONSTRAINS THE FOLKS OUT THERE -- HEARTLESS FOLKS OUT THERE. HOW DO WE ENABLE AND ENSURE THAT BARRIERS ARE NOT CREATED? WELL EARLIER ON THIS YEAR I DID SOME WORK AND A NUMBER OF FOLKS IN THIS ROOM, BETTE -- BETTY SIMPSON AND OTHERS DID SOME WORK WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITY OF ONTARIO AND THEY CAME OUT AND WE FIGURED OUT THAT A DEVELOPMENT CHARGE IS GOING TO ENABLE US TO DEAL WITH NEW BARRIERS. WHAT IS A DEVELOPMENT CHARGE? WHAT IS

A DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT? WELL A DEVELOPMENT CHARGE IS SOMETHING THAT THE MUNICIPALITY LEVIES AGAINST THE DEVELOPER WHEN THEY ARE BUILDING A NEW COMMUNITY OR A NEW DEVELOPMENT. IT IS WHAT PAYS FOR THAT ROAD, THAT SEWER, THAT INTERSECTION, THAT COMMUNITY CENTER THAT'S BEING BUILT TO HOUSE ALL THE NEW KIDS. ALL OTHER ACCESSIBLE OR MEANS OF COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE COME OUT OF THAT FEE. ACCESSIBILITY IS NOT FACTORED INTO THAT FEE. OKAY. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT OCCURS. PRESENTLY THE CRITICAL COST OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE SIDEWALKS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS, COMMUNITY CENTERS AND PLAY STRUCTURES ARE NOT FACTORED INTO THAT EQUATION. IT'S NOT FUNDED LIKEWISE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COSTS IS INCURRED. WHAT WILL AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT DO TO INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY? FACTOR ACCESSIBILITY PLANNING INTO THE PRELIMINARY STAGES OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL ASSIST IN THE PREVENTION AND REDUCTION OF BARRIERS ESSENTIALLY WILL HELP EDUCATE THE PLANNERS INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. 2. PROVIDE INCLUSION OF FUNDING INTO THE REAL COST OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT. IT WILL ACCURATELY REFLECT THAT. 3. IT WILL REDUCE FUTURE REMOVAL COSTS FOR THE PROVINCE, THE MUNICIPALITIES AND OWNERS BECAUSE

WHAT WE BUILD TODAY THAT'S INACCESSIBLE WILL COST US MORE TOMORROW TO REMOVE AND UNDER THE ODA EVEN AS IT IS PRESENTLY STATED THAT THE MUNICIPAL OR THE ANNUAL ACCESSIBILITY PLAN, IT IS INEVITABLE IF NOT ALREADY REMARKED UPON. OKAY. 4. IT WILL FORCE A DEGREE OF TECHNICAL CONTINUITY. ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS THAT WE TRIED TO RESOLVE -- THERE'S A NEWSPAPER (PHOEN) CALLED "THE ONTARIO NETWORK OF PROFESSIONALS" THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM BELONGS TO -- CONGRUENT AND A CONTINUITY IN REGARDS TO TECHNICAL STANDARDS. A SIDEWALK IN GUELPH SHOULD BE THE SAME AS IT IS IN BRAMPTON AND OTTAWA AND ELSEWHERE. OKAY. 5. CREATE ENFORCEMENT BY SELF-REGULATION BY DEVELOPERS AND THE OMB. LET ME CLARIFY THAT. ALL YOU FOLKS ARE GOING TO SAY SELF-REGULATION, IT DOESN'T WORK. I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT MATTER. WHAT I MEAN HERE IS ANYONE EVER WORKED WITH DEVELOPERS? ANY ONE HERE WORKED FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENTS? THEY ARE A NARLY (PHOEN) BUNCH! THEY FIGHT FOR EVERYTHING! WHAT THEY DON'T GET, THEY TAKE TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD AND THEN THEY GET IT! IF ACCESSIBILITY IS FACTORED INTO THE FUNDING EQUATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CHARGE, IF THAT MONEY

IS NOT SPENT ON EXACTLY WHAT IT IS STATED TO BE SPENT ON, YOU'RE GOING TO THE OMB. THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL THING BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT DEVELOPERS WILL REGULATE THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE MUNICIPALITY BY WAY OF THAT WILL BE FORCED TO PROVIDE THAT ACCESSIBILITY BECAUSE THE MONEY IS THERE, THE TIMING IS THERE, AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY EXCUSES. LET'S HOPE NOT. OKAY. WHAT CAN YOU DO? HOW CAN YOU MAKE THIS HAPPEN? I REMEMBER STANDING UP LAST YEAR UP IN SAULT STE. MARIE -- TRACY ROGAN IS HERE FROM THERE --AND WE BROUGHT FORWARD A COUPLE OF RESOLUTIONS, AND I THINK AT THE END OF TODAY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, BUT THERE WAS SOME GREAT RESOLUTION THAT IS CAME OUT OF THAT DISCUSSION. I MAY SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THESE MIGHT BE A COUPLE OF THEM THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER. OKAY. THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN DO. HAVE YOUR MUNICIPAL COUNCILS AND YOUR ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES SEND RESOLUTIONS TO THE PROVINCE ENDORSING THE NO. 1 RECOMMENDATION AND I SAY "NO. 1 RECOMMENDATION OF THE ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO" THAT SAYS THAT THEY WANT ACCESSIBILITY TO BE FUNDED AND FACTORED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. IT'S BASICALLY WHAT IT SAYS. NO. 1 RECOMMENDATION. IF ANYONE KNOWS AMO -- THE

ASSOCIATION MUNICIPALITIES -- THEY'RE THE FOLKS THAT STAND UP FOR COUNCIL AND REPRESENT MUNICIPALITY. THEY REPRESENT 99.5 MUNICIPALITIES IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO, AND I CAN SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THE PROVINCE LISTENS TO THEM VERY ATTENTIVELY SO ANY RESOLUTION IN THAT REGARD WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. THE SECOND THING IS PUT THIS MATTER ON YOUR ANNUAL ACCESSIBILITY PLAN. PUT IT ON THERE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION. THAT WAY IT'S ON THE BOOKS AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE DISCUSSED. ANY QUICK QUESTIONS BECAUSE, AS I SAID, I WILL BE HERE AND DONE BY 1:30. I SAID BEFORE I HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING IN 15 MINUTES BUT THERE MAY BE A POSSIBILITY FOR THIS. LET'S TAKE SOME QUICK QUESTIONS OVER HERE. I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. YES, SIR, IN THE THIRD ROW ON THE LEFT SIDE.

>> ... (INAUDIBLE) ... THE CAPTIONER: I AM EXPERIENCING DIFFICULTY HEARING YOU. SPEAK UP PLEASE.

>> IN ESSEX COUNTY THE SIDEWALKS ARE VERY POOR GETTING FROM A TO B. THERE IS A NEW CANADIAN TIRE STORE IS BEING BUILT THAT NEEDS SIDEWALKS TO BE DONE. THEY SAY THEY DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY IN THE BUDGET

RIGHT NOW.

GERALD PARKER: GOOD BUSINESS REQUIRES SMART THINKING. I CAN SAY THAT AS SOMEONE THAT'S ADVOCATED FOR OVER 18 YEARS, DO BUSINESS THAT RESPECTS YOUR BUSINESS. IF THEY DON'T, THEN YOU HAVE TO UNAVOIDABLY UNDERUTILIZE THOSE BUSINESSES. YOU ARE WELL WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS OF BRINGING THIS MATTER FORWARD. DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND TIMING -- I SHOWED YOU A PICTURE OF A SIDEWALK NEW MUNICIPAL BUILDING -- IT'S STILL INACCESSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE PLANNING ACT THAT GOVERNS THE SIDEWALK AND THE BUILDING CODE GOVERNS THE BUILDING AND EVERYTHING WITHIN IT. WHAT YOU SHOULD DO --I WON'T SUGGEST YOU BRING THE MATTER TO YOUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT -- BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF YOUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND YOU ALSO COPY THAT OFF TO THE MAYOR. MAKE IT A POLITICAL ISSUE IF YOU HAVE TO. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> YES.

GERALD PARKER: WE HAVE A COMMENT DOWN HERE, THIRD ONE ON THE LEFT ROW. I'M MARKING YOU DOWN SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP STICKING YOUR HAND UP. OKAY. I GOT YOU. ANYONE ON THE RIGHT SIDE? OKAY. TRY AND MAKE THIS QUICK BECAUSE MR. LEPOFSKY IS COMING HERE AND WE KNOW HOW IMPORTANT HIS

TIME IS. FIVE OVER HERE. GO AHEAD, MA'AM.

>> I'M ON THE LONDON ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD GET A COPY OF YOUR POWER POINT PRESENTATION FOR OUR COMMITTEE JUST TO USE AS A GUIDE. I DIDN'T GET EVERYTHING DOWN.

GERALD PARKER: I HAVE LEFT A COPY HERE FOR ROGERS AND I'M SURE THAT ROBIN AND KATHY AND THOSE FOLKS CAN MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO YOU. OTHERWISE I HAVE GOT A CARD UP HERE AND SEND ME A E-MAIL AND I WILL SEND IT TO WHO WHOEVER WANTS IT.

>> MY QUESTION WAS THE SAME.

>> SAME QUESTION.

GERALD PARKER: THANK YOU. NUMBER FOUR IS RIGHT OVER HERE IN THE BACK.

>> I'M NORMA FROM THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I'M CURIOUS WHAT THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT CHARGES PERCENTAGE IS RIGHT NOW.

GERALD PARKER: IT IS CHANGING. IT IS OUT FOR AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW. DEPENDING UPON THE MUNICIPALITY IT'S FACTORED DIFFERENTLY, OKAY, SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ANSWER. ASK YOUR LOCAL PLANNER THOUGH. HE SHOULD KNOW. NUMBER FIVE IS RIGHT UP HERE. A

GENTLEMAN IN THE BEIGE SHIRT.

>> DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. IS IT NOT TRUE WITHIN A FIVE YEAR PERIOD OR EVERY FIVE YEARS YOUR DCS ARE ADJUSTED WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY TO REFLECT THE PREVIOUS PROCESSES?

GERALD PARKER: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I GUESS MY COMMENT WOULD BE ONCE WE GET THIS ON THE DOCKET, IT WILL PICK UP EVERY FIVE YEARS FROM THEREON IN, AND DEVELOPERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THAT PATTERN?

GERALD PARKER: THAT'S RIGHT. IT WILL BE FACTORED IN IF IT'S NOT PROPERLY APPLIED TO.

>> AT THIS TIME THERE IS NO MECHANISM YET TO PICK UP ACCESSIBILITY --

GERALD PARKER: THAT'S WHY WE NEED THE AMENDMENT. AMO HAS PUT THAT FORWARD. ANYONE ELSE? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO -- YES.

>> THE REPORT THAT GERALD HAS REFERRED TO THAT WAS PRODUCED BY AMO IS ON THE CD THAT EACH OF YOU HAVE RECEIVED. IT'S IN BOTH PDF AND WORD FORMAT SO IT IS ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE.

GERALD PARKER: I THINK THAT DOCUMENT IS ONE OF THE FIRST AND THE BEST EXAMPLES OF COLLABORATION THAT THE PROVINCE HAS ENGAGED IN SINCE THE

ODA. AMO CAME FORWARD WITH ITS BOARD BUT IT ALSO HAD ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS GO OUT TO ITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND ALSO BROUGHT OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ONTARIO NETWORK OF PROFESSIONALS INTO THE FOLD SO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT INFORMATION AT THE RIGHT TIME, SO IT IS A VERY GOOD DOCUMENT. I AM GOING TO LEAVE YOU WITH THIS LAST REMARK. AT MY HEART I ALWAYS LIKE TO INSPIRE PEOPLE. I JUST TOOK A WONDERFUL WALK OVER TO THE LIBRARY ACROSS. AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THERE IS THE ERGO DESIGN AWARD. THEY HAVE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB THE UNIVERSITY. THEY HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB WITH THIS FACILITY PERIOD. (APPLAUSE). I WALKED INTO THE LIBRARY AND AS SOON AS I GOT THROUGH THE DOORS THERE WAS THIS SAYING RIGHT ON THE WALL AND IT WAS A QUOTE AND I WILL READ IT TO YOU. "YOUR LOVE FOR EACH OTHER MAY INCREASE MORE AND MORE AND NEVER STOP IMPROVING YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND DEEPENING YOUR PERCEPTION SO THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS RECOGNIZE WHAT IS BEST." THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. GOD BLESS. (APPLAUSE).

-- 1:39 P.M.

KATHY LEWIS: COUNCILLOR SUSAN EAGLE IS GOING TO INTRODUCE DAVID LEPOFSKY.

COUNCILLOR SUSAN EAGLE: IT'S INDEED A PRIVILEGE TODAY FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO INTRODUCE DAVID TO YOU. I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY IN THE ROOM ACTUALLY NEED AN INTRODUCTION TO HIM BECAUSE AS I CAME IN THE DOOR I HEARD PEOPLE REFERRING TO "THE GREAT LEPOFSKY" (LAUGHTER) AND SOMEBODY TOLD ME THAT IF DEALING WITH ACCESSIBILITY WAS A MOVIE, HE WOULD BE A HOLLYWOOD. HE IS A CHAIR OF THE ODA COMMITTEE WHICH HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS. HIS ORGANIZATION LED THE CHARGE FOR THE ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT LEGISLATION. IN HIS PAID WORK BECAUSE HE DOES THIS AS A VOLUNTEER -- IN HIS PAID WORK HE WORKS IN CRIMINAL LAW FOR THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT AND I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THAT (LAUGHTER) BUT HE HAS SURVIVED SINCE 1928 (PHOEN) WHICH MEANS HE HAS WORKED WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS DURING THAT TIME. HE ALSO TEACHES PART-TIME AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LAW SCHOOL. HE COMES INTO HIS WORK FROM THE BACKGROUND OF HAVING BEEN BLIND FOR THE LAST 26 YEARS AND

EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE HEARD ABOUT HIM OR READ ABOUT HIM INDICATES THAT HE HAS A GREAT PASSION FOR THE WORK THAT HE DOES. IN FACT WHEN I ASKED HIM IF THERE WAS ANY PARTICULAR FACT THAT HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I SHARED WITH YOU TODAY, IT WAS THE FACT THAT HE LOVES DOING THE WORK THAT HE DOES. DAVID, I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF PARTICIPATING IN SETTING UP OF THE CITY'S ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND AT THAT TIME WHAT WAS MOST OVERWHELMING WAS THE IMPRESSIVE ROSTER OF PEOPLE WHO CAME FORWARD TO VOLUNTEER THEIR TIME AND TO BE PART OF THIS INITIATIVE SO I HOPE TODAY YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE HERE WITH FRIENDS AND WITH ADVOCATES, PEOPLE WHO SHARE NOT ONLY YOUR VISION OF REMOVING BARRIERS, BUT WANTING TO GET THINGS MOVING IN TERMS OF THE PRACTICALITY OF MOVING US ALL FORWARD. WE VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR WORDS TO US TODAY. THANK YOU. (APPLAUSE).

DAVID LEPOFSKY: GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. AM I LIVE NOW? IS THAT EVER A PROBLEM? (LAUGHTER). THIS NOVEMBER 29TH WILL MARK TEN YEARS

SINCE THE FATEFUL DAY IN NOVEMBER OF 1994 WHEN ABOUT 20 OF US HAPPENED TO END UP IN A ROOM TOGETHER AT QUEEN'S PARK UTTERLY UNAWARE OF THE VOYAGE WE WERE STARTING. AT THAT POINT 20 OF US KNEW THAT PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN ONTARIO FACED TOO MANY BARRIERS. LORD KNOWS MORE THAN 20 OF US KNEW THAT BUT THE 20 OF US IN THAT ROOM HAD THAT SHARED BELIEF. WE ALSO KNEW THAT WHILE WE HAD WON RIGHTS IN IMPORTANT LAWS -- THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS, AND SO ON -- AND WE DONE OUR BEST TO GET THOSE LAWS TO WORK FOR US, WE KNEW THAT THEY WERE NOT ENOUGH. WE KNEW THEY WERE TOO SLOW, TOO BACKLOGGED, TOO EXPENSIVE AND TOO INEFFICIENT. THEY REQUIRED US TO FIGHT BARRIERS ONE AT A TIME. WE KNEW FROM OUR EXPERIENCE, THE 20 OF US IN THE ROOM, AND SO MANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T THERE THAT DAY, BUT WOULD JOIN US LATER, WE KNEW THAT THAT WE HAD A SHARED VISION OF WHAT WE WANT THE TO ACHIEVE. WE WANTED ONTARIO TO BECOME A BARRIER-FREE PROVINCE. WELL WE HAVE COME A VERY LONG WAY IN THE TEN YEARS SINCE AND WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY DESPITE THE FACT THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE THOUGHT WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE HOPE IN A MILLION OF MAKING ANY PROGRESS. WHERE HAVE WE COME? WELL BACK THEN WE SET ABOUT TO UNITE THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY BEHIND THE CAUSE OF A BARRIER-FREE PROVINCE AND TO DO IT THROUGH A STRONG NEW LAW TO BE CALLED THE

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. MANY WHO HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DISABILITY RIGHTS MOVEMENT THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A COMMUNITY THAT HAD SO OFTEN DIVIDED. WE DID NOT HAVE ANY HOPE IN THERE BECOMING UNITED IN THE TEN YEARS SINCE THEN THOSE 20 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN JOINED BY 100S, BY THOUSANDS OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES, MANY, MANY PEOPLE WITHOUT DISABILITIES WHO ARE AFTER ALL ONLY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN TRAINING (LAUGHTER) AND DOZENS AND DOZENS OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. WE HAVE GONE INTO AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN 1995 IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO WHERE MANY SAID YOU'LL NEVER GET ANY COMMITMENTS FROM ANY POLITICIANS. WELL WE DID INCLUDING ONE FROM A FELLOW NAMED MIKE HARRIS AND WHEN HE WAS ELECTED MANY, MANY PEOPLE SAID, "THERE IS NO WAY YOU'LL EVER GET THEM TO EVEN MEET WITH YOU TO LIVE UP TO THEIR COMMITMENTS." WELL WE HAD TO ORGANIZE AND FIGHT LIKE THE DEVIL BUT WE GOT NOT ONE BUT FOUR SUCCESSIVE CITIZENSHIP MINISTERSHIPS UNDER THAT GOVERNMENT THAT WILL TALK TO US. (LAUGHTER). THEY WEREN'T EAGER. THE FIRST ONE TOOK A YEAR AND A QUARTER BEFORE SHE CAME IN A ROOM WITH US. IT WAS THOUGHT BY MANY BACK THEN THAT WE COULDN'T GET THE HARRIS GOVERNMENT TO EVER INTRODUCE A BILL -- TO ENACT AN ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. TO EVEN INTRODUCE A BILL. WELL IN 1998 THEY DID BUT IT WAS A THREE PAGE TOOTHLESS BILL. MANY THOUGHT AT THAT POINT

THERE WAS NO WAY WE COULD GET THEM TO BACK DOWN FROM THAT BILL AND OFFER US SOMETHING BETTER BUT WE DID. MANY THOUGHT THAT WE COULD NEVER COME UP WITH AN AGENDA FOR WHAT WE WANTED IN THIS KIND OF LEGISLATION TO ACHIEVE OUR GOAL BUT WE DID. WE CRAFTED TOGETHER 11 PRINCIPLES THAT SET OUT HOW SUCH LEGISLATION SHOULD WORK. MANY THOUGHT THAT EVEN IF WE CAME UP WITH PRINCIPLES, THAT EVEN IF WE WITHIN THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY COULD AGREE UPON THEM --A MIRACLE IN OF ITSELF -- THAT WE COULD NEVER GET ANYBODY IN GOVERNMENT TO AGREE, BUT AN ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT THE 29TH OF 1998 THE ONTARIO LEGISLATURE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE ALL 11 OF OUR PRINCIPLES. WELL, WE MAY HAVE HAD PRINCIPLES, AND WE MAY HAVE DEFEATED A WEAK LAW, BUT MANY THOUGHT AT THAT POINT WE COULD NEVER GET THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT TO COME FORWARD WITH A SECOND BILL. THEY DID IN THE FALL OF 2001. IT WASN'T A STRONG LAW BUT IT WAS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THEIR TOOTHLESS, THREE PAGE FIRST OFFER. WHEN THEY INTRODUCED THAT BILL, MANY THOUGHT THAT WE COULDN'T GET THEM TO STRENGTHEN IT AT ALL BUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AROUND THE PROVINCE RALLIED TO LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE GIVEN AS LITTLE AS ONE DAY'S NOTICE TO DEMAND IMPROVEMENTS AND THEY GOT OVER 15 OF THE 30 SECTIONS IN THE LAW AMENDED BEFORE IT PASSED.

AFTER THAT LAW WAS PASSED AND IT WASN'T A STRONG ONE, THE ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 2001, MANY THOUGHT THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY THAT UNITED BEHIND THE ODA MOVEMENT THAT IT WOULD GIVE UP. WE TRIED. WE DIDN'T GET MUCH. WHAT CAN WE DO? BUT ANYBODY WHO THOUGHT THAT WAS WRONG BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY STAYED UNITED BEHIND THIS AGENDA AND WE HAVE COME OUT OF THE ELECTION OF LAST YEAR WHILE WE ARE NON-PARTISAN AND WE SUPPORT OR ENDORSE NO POLITICAL PARTY WE WENT INTO THE 2003 PROVINCIAL ELECTION GETTING PLEDGES FROM THE LIBERALS AND THE NEW DEMOCRATS TO STRENGTHEN THE ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALONG OUR AGENDA TO FULFILL OUR 11 PRINCIPLES AND EMERGING FROM THAT ELECTION CAME PREMIER DALTON MCGUINTY ELECTED WITH A MAJORITY GOVERNMENT. WELL WHERE HAVE WE COME SINCE HE TOOK OFFICE? IT'S IMPORTANT THAT POLITICIANS BE EVALUATED WITH THE PROMISES THEY HAVE MADE. NOW THE REALITY IS WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE BILL THEY'RE GOING TO INTRODUCE. THEY NEED TIME TO GET IT TOGETHER AND TO MAKE IT RIGHT, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THEY PROMISED THAT A NEW MINISTER WOULD CONSULT WITH THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY. DR. BOUNTROGIANNI, THE CITIZENSHIP MINISTER, HELD EXTENSIVE CONSULTATIONS ACROSS THE PROVINCE WITH MORE THAN ONE DAY'S NOTICE AN UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT THEY WERE OPEN TO ANYONE TO PARTICIPATE. THEY WERE NOT

INVITATION ONLY. WE ASKED THE NEW GOVERNMENT TO DO WHAT THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT WOULDN'T WHICH IS TO BRING US TO THE TABLE WITH FOLKS FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, FROM HOSPITALS, FROM UNIVERSITIES, FROM MUNICIPALITIES AND THEY DID AND AS YOU HEARD FROM DR. BOUNTROGIANNI THIS MORNING THEY WERE SURPRISED TO FIND OUT THAT WE AGREE ON FAR MORE THAN WE DISAGREE ON, ON HOW THIS LEGISLATION SHOULD BE PUT TOGETHER SO WE ALSO HAD A COMMITMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO BRING FORWARD THIS LEGISLATION WITHIN A YEAR AND YOU HEARD THIS MORNING THE CITIZENSHIP MINISTER ANNOUNCED SHE IS GOING TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION THIS FALL. SO FAR WE STILL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE IF THE LAW IS AS GOOD AS WE WANT IT TO BE AND AS GOOD AS WE WERE PROMISED, BUT SO FAR ON EVERY SCORE THAT THE NEW GOVERNMENT COMMITTED, THEY'RE KEEPING THEIR COMMITMENTS TO US 100%. HOW HAVE WE BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL? HOW COME WE HAVE OVERCOMED THE ODDS AT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY? WE HAVE DONE SO BECAUSE OF INDIVIDUALS, BECAUSE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES, BECAUSE OF PEOPLE WITHOUT DISABILITIES WHO SHARE OUR CONCERNS, BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU AROUND THIS PROVINCE WHO WON'T TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER, WHO SAID THAT YOU HAVE -- WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO FULLY PARTICIPATE IN THIS SOCIETY. YOU HAVEN'T DONE IT BY

BREAKING THE LAW. YOU HAVE DONE IT BY USING THE LAW. YOU HAVE DONE IT BY ORGANIZING, HOLDING MEETINGS, GOING TO THE MEDIA, COMING UP WITH CLEVER STRATEGIES EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU AND MANY, MANY MORE AROUND THE PROVINCE DREW UPON THEIR INDIVIDUAL TALENTS TO CONTRIBUTE HOW THEY COULD AND THERE IS NO BETTER EXAMPLE OF THE HEROES WHO DID THIS THAN THE PERSON WHOSE MEMORY WE HONOR TODAY. MY FRIEND MICHAEL LEWIS. MICHAEL BLIND AND A MUSICIAN APPROACHED ME AT A SESSION -- AT A PUBLIC FORUM WE DID A FEW YEARS AGO IN LONDON. I HAD JUST GIVEN A TALK AND THERE WERE LOTS OF PEOPLE TO TALK WITH AND AMONGST THE PEOPLE -- "MY NAME IS MICHAEL LEWIS. I'M A FOLK SINGER. WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF I WROTE A SONG FOR THE ODA CAUSE?" I SAID "SURE." IT SOUNDED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AND FRANKLY I DIDN'T GIVE IT A SECOND THOUGHT. LOTS OF PEOPLE COME UP WITH GOOD IDEAS. WOULDN'T YOU KNOW A VIDEO ARRIVES A YEAR LATER OR SOME MONTHS LATER WITH THE SONG WITH HIM PERFORMING -- IT'S CALLED "STILL WAITING" WITH POWERFUL LYRICS AND WITH THE ATN (PHOEN) ORGANIZATION IN LONDON HAVING PUT TOGETHER A FABULOUS VIDEO DEPICTING THE BARRIERS HE SANG ABOUT. IT BECAME OUR ANTHEM. PEOPLE LIKE MICHAEL LEWIS TOOK THE ENERGY THEY HAD TO CONVEY THE MESSAGE THAT WE ALL HAVE ABOUT OUR NEED FOR A BARRIER-FREE SOCIETY. THAT'S HOW WE HAVE COME AS FAR AS WE HAVE AND WE ACTUALLY MADE HISTORY TODAY. NO, WE DON'T

HAVE THE LAW WE SEEK YET BUT THIS MORNING TO HER CREDIT THE CITIZENSHIP MINISTER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO CAME HERE AND SPOKE ENDORSING OUR AGENDA FOR A BARRIER-FREE PROVINCE. DO YOU KNOW THAT NO CITIZENSHIP MINISTER HAS EVER DONE THAT BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO? (APPLAUSE). DO YOU KNOW THAT EVERY CONSERVATIVE CITIZENSHIP MINISTER THAT HAS BEEN INVITED TO SPEAK IN THIS CITY AND OTHER CITY HAS CONSISTENTLY DECLINED? NEVER SENT A SPEECH. NEVER SENT A LETTER TO READ OUT TO ENDORSE OUR MESSAGE. NOTHING OF THE SORT. WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS. WELL, THE TIME I HAVE GOT BEFORE WE CONVENE OUR AFTERNOON PANEL I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT TWO THINGS. WHAT CAN WE EXPECT IS GOING TO UNFOLD OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP OUR TRACK RECORD FOR SUCCESS CONTINUE. LET ME FIRST TALK ABOUT WHAT TO EXPECT. WE ARE EXPECTING A BILL TO BE INTRODUCED THIS FALL. WHAT HAPPENS THEN? MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT WATCHING THE PARLIAMENTARY CHANNEL FOR THEIR SPARE TIME HOBBY (LAUGHTER), LIKE I DO, MANY PEOPLE HAVE A BETTER WAY TO USE THEIR TIME DON'T KNOW HOW A BILL GETS THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE. WE HAVE WRITTEN A SUMMARY. IT'S ON OUR ODA COMMITTEE WEBSITE AND IT'S ALSO ON THE CD

THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN OUT BUT PUT IN SIMPLE TERMS THE MINISTER GOES THROUGH ESSENTIALLY UP TO FOUR STEPS. FIRST SHE INTRODUCES THE BILL FOR FIRST READING. SHE'LL MAKE A SPEECH. PARLIAMENT -- THE LEGISLATURE WILL VOTE. IT'S USUALLY VOTED APPROVED AUTOMATICALLY WITH NO DEBATE. SECOND, SHE WILL LATER BRING IT FORWARD FOR SECOND READING. THAT'S WHEN THE LEGISLATURE DEBATES WHETHER TO APPROVE THE BILL IN PRINCIPLE AND AT THAT POINT THERE IS SOME DEBATE THAT TAKES PLACE IN THE LEGISLATURE. NEXT THE GOVERNMENT CAN AND IN THIS CASE HAS COMMITTED TO SEND THE BILL TO A COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATURE FOR HEARINGS. THAT'S WHEN YOU AND I GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY TO GO BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TO TELL THEM WHAT'S GOOD IN THE BILL AND TO PROPOSE IMPROVEMENTS. AND THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO HOLD THESE HEARINGS BUT THEY HAVE COMMITTED IN THE PAST THAT THEY WILL ON THIS BILL. THEN AFTER THEY HOLD THOSE HEARINGS THE COMMITTEE CAN UNDERTAKE WHAT'S CALLED CLAUSE BY CLAUSE DEBATE WHERE THEY LOOK AT AMENDMENTS AND THEY DEBATE WHETHER TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BILL. FINALLY THE REFINED BILL GOES BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE FOR A THIRD READING. NOW IT'S REALISTIC TO EXPECT THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT INTRODUCES THE BILL SOME

TIME THIS FALL, IT MAY WELL NOT GO TO HEARINGS UNTIL OVER THE WINTER MONTHS AND MAY NOT COME BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE UNTIL THE LEGISLATURE RESUMES SOME TIME IN THE SPRING. THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT BAD BECAUSE UNLIKE WHAT WE WENT THROUGH THREE YEARS AGO WITH THE CONSERVATIVES, THAT MAY GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO ORGANIZE OUR THOUGHTS, PREPARE OUR IDEAS AND GIVE OUR INPUT WITH MORE THAN 24 HOURS NOTICE BEFORE WE HAVE TO MAKE OUR PRESENTATIONS. SO THOSE ARE THE KIND OF STEPS WE CAN EXPECT. WELL WHAT CAN YOU DO? WHAT CAN WE DO? I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THERE IS A FEW SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WE CAN ALL DO NOW AND THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS AND TODAY'S EVENT IS A FABULOUS CONTRIBUTION TO HELP US DO THAT AND WE ARE VERY MUCH INDEBTED TO KATHY LEWIS AND LORIN MCDONALD, ALL OF THOSE WHO WORKED WITH THEM AND ALL OF THE SPEAKERS AS WELL AS ALL OF YOU WHO ARE HERE TODAY. (APPLAUSE). THE FIRST THING YOU CAN DO IS YOU CAN LEARN MORE ABOUT THE ODA AND ABOUT THE AREAS WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN COMMITMENTS TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS, BUT REALLY THE COMMITMENTS TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS FIT IN THE FOUR CATEGORIES. FIRST THE CURRENT ODA MAKES IT OPTIONAL WHETHER AN ORGANIZATION REMOVES OR PREVENTS BARRIERS. THE GOVERNMENT IS COMMITTED TO MAKE THAT MANDATORY.

SECOND, THE CURRENT ODA ONLY APPLIES TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR. THE GOVERNMENT IS COMMITTED TO EXTEND IT TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR. THIRD, THE OLD ODA HAS NO ENFORCEMENT IN PLACE NOW AT ALL. THE GOVERNMENT IS COMMITTED TO COME UP WITH AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM AND THE PANEL WE'RE GOING TO CONDUCT IN SUCH A FEW MINUTES IS GOING TO FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON IDEAS AND OPTIONS FOR THAT AND TO CONTRIBUTE THE ODA COMMITTEE HAS RELEASED A DISCUSSION PAPER -- IT'S ON YOUR CD -- FOR DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT. IT'S A COMPLICATED AREA. IT'S NOT EASY BUT WE WANT IT TO WORK. FOURTH AND FINALLY THE OLD ODA ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS BUT IT NEVER MADE ANY UNDER THAT LAW. THE GOVERNMENT IS COMMITTED TO MAKE -- TO ASSURE THAT THERE WILL BE A SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT WILL SET APPROPRIATE ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS SO WHEN WE LOOK AT ANY NEW BILL REALLY THE BEST THING WE CAN DO IS ASK THE QUESTION DID IT MEET THOSE FOUR REQUIREMENTS? AND THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE NDP BOTH FOUGHT FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WHEN THE CONSERVATIVE BILL WAS BEFORE THE HOUSE THREE YEARS AGO. WE WILL WATCH TO SEE IF THE NEW BILL MEETS THOSE FOUR COMMITMENTS. SO THE FIRST THING WE COULD DO IS LEARN

ABOUT THESE THINGS AND BE READY TO TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT COMES UP WITH. HOW CAN YOU LEARN MORE? I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU TWO WAYS. ONE IS VISIT THE ODA COMMITTEE WEBSITE. IT'S OUR OPEN FILING CABINET. ODACOMMITTEE.NET IS THE SITE. EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO READ AND LOTS YOU PROBABLY WON'T HAVE TIME TO READ. AND, BY THE WAY, ON YOUR -- ON THE CD OR WE CAN E-MAIL IT TO YOU IF YOU DON'T ACCESS IT ON THE CD IS ALSO A VERY DETAILED HISTORY OF THE ODA MOVEMENT WHICH I WROTE AND WHICH HAS BEEN PUBLISHED SO IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET ALL THE BACKGROUND, IT'S ALL THERE. WE ALSO USE E-MAIL TO KEEP PEOPLE POSTED ON NEW DEVELOPMENTS. IF YOU'RE NOT ON OUR E-MAIL LIST, AND YOUR COMPUTER DOESN'T MIND A BIT MORE INFORMATION EVERY COUPLE OF MINUTES, (LAUGHTER), I HAVE ASKED KATHY LEWIS TO CIRCULATE A LIST THIS AFTERNOON, SIGN YOUR NAME AND YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE E-MAIL, WE DON'T HAVE A HUGE BUDGET SO WE CAN'T BE MAILING EVERYBODY A PIECE OF PAPER. WE WILL WAIT FOR THEM TO CIRCULATE INFORMATION TO YOU. FOR THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING US ON ROGERS CABLE, IF YOU WANT OUR E-MAIL, WRITE TO US AT ODA.COMMITTEE.NET. THAT'S THE FIRST THING YOU CAN DO IS LEARN ABOUT IT.

THE SECOND YOU CAN DO IS GET READY FOR REALLY THE THREE MAJOR PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING TO LIE AHEAD BETWEEN NOW AND THE DATE THIS BILL PASSES THIRD READING. WHAT ARE OUR THREE CHALLENGES? AND THIS ISN'T A CHALLENGE FOR ME. IT'S A CHALLENGE FOR ALL OF US. THE FIRST THING WE HAVE GOT TO DO --THE FIRST THING THAT WE HAVE GOT TO DO IS TO IMMEDIATELY GET TO WORK TO GET AS MUCH SUPPORT OUT THERE IN THE COMMUNITY EVEN BEFORE THE BILL COMES FORWARD AND TO GIVE THE GOVERNMENT GOOD IDEAS OF WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE BILL. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME FOR THIS. WE HAVE ALL BEEN COMING FORWARD WITH GOOD IDEAS AND TODAY YOU HAVE BEEN COMING UP WITH ME. IF YOU HAVE GOT IDEAS WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE IN THE ODA BILL, MAKE SURE YOU LET THE GOVERNMENT KNOW. LET THE CITIZENSHIP MINISTER KNOW. THIS IS THE TIME TO DO IT. THERE IS NO -- IT'S NEVER TOO LATE FOR A GOOD IDEA. AND IF YOU TELL THE GOVERNMENT, PLEASE TELL US BECAUSE WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE GOOD IDEAS. WE WOULD LIKE TO ENDORSE GOOD IDEAS BUT THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO HAVE YOUR SAY SO IT'S NOT TOO LATE BUT YOU HAVE GOT TO ACT NOW. THAT'S THE FIRST THING. BRING THE GOVERNMENT GOOD IDEAS. NO. 2. THE SECOND THING THAT YOU AND I WILL HAVE TO DO -- SECOND MAJOR PROJECT THAT WE'LL ALL BE FACING, WHEN THE BILL IS INTRODUCED WE ALL HAVE TO GET

VERY ACTIVE VERY QUICKLY TO LOOK AT IT, SEE WHERE IT'S GOOD, SEE WHERE IT NEEDS IMPROVEMENT AND PROPOSE IMPROVEMENTS IF THEY'RE NEEDED. THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE FOR. WE HAVE ALL GOT TO COME FORWARD AND TAKE PART IN THAT. TO HELP YOU WITH THAT WE AT THE ODA COMMITTEE WILL AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN CIRCULATE THE BILL AND PREPARE AND CIRCULATE AN ANALYSIS OF IT WITH OUR SUGGESTIONS BUT OUR SUGGESTIONS ARE ONLY OUR SUGGESTIONS. THEY'RE ONLY GOOD IF YOU LIKE THEM AND IF YOU HAVE GOT BETTER IDEAS, WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU AND WE WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO HEAR FROM YOU SO THE SECOND MAJOR PROJECT IS WHEN THE BILL COMES OUT, BE READY TO LOOK AT IT, FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOOD AND IF IT NEEDS IMPROVEMENT, PROPOSE IMPROVEMENTS. LET ME TELL YOU THE THIRD PROJECT AND THIS WILL BE A BIT NEW FOR SOME OF US. IF THE BILL IS A GOOD ONE, IF THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS ITS WORD OF WHAT IT WILL PROVIDE IN THIS LEGISLATION, WE HAVE TO BE READY TO CAMPAIGN IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. WE NEED TO BE OUT THERE TALKING TO EVERY MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE, WHETHER A LIBERAL OR AN NDP OR A CONSERVATIVE. WE HAVE GOT TO BE -- CONSERVATIVE -- YOU AND I WE HAVE GOT TO BE OUT THERE TALKING TO JOURNALISTS ABOUT WHY WE NEED THIS BILL. WE NEED TO BE TALKING TO BUSINESS PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND TO CITY COUNCILLORS IN OUR COMMUNITY TO TELL THEM WHY

THIS BILL IS NEEDED IF IT'S A GOOD BILL. IF IT'S NOT A GOOD BILL WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CAMPAIGN FOR IMPROVEMENTS, BUT IF IT'S A GOOD BILL WE CAN'T JUST TRUST THAT IT WILL WIN PUBLIC -- WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT MESSAGE OUT AND WE'LL HAVE ONE LITTLE PROBLEM IN DOING IT AND IT'S A PROBLEM THAT WE KNOW A BIT ABOUT. WHAT'S THAT PROBLEM? THE MEDIA DOESN'T REPORT GOOD NEWS THAT OFTEN. (LAUGHTER) IF SOMEBODY CRITICIZES THE GOVERNMENT, THAT GETS A LOT OF PRESS AND WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE IN THE PAST WHEN WE FACED BAD BILLS AND WE CRITICIZED THEM, THAT GOT A LOT OF MEDIA ATTENTION BUT WE HAVE TO WORK TWICE AS HARD IF OUR MESSAGE IS GOOD NEWS. THAT'S JUST THE WAY THE NEW INDUSTRY WORKS. WE MAY NOT LIKE IT BUT IT'S A REALITY. WE NEED YOU IN YOUR COMMUNITY IF YOU LIKE THE BILL TO CAMPAIGN FOR IT. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE BILL YOU HAVE GOT TO CAMPAIGN FOR ITS IMPROVEMENT BUT OUR JOB IS TO GET THIS BILL NOT ONLY GOOD, MAKE SURE IT'S GOOD, AND NOT ONLY TO MAKE SURE IT GETS BAST BUT TO MAKE SURE IT WINS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE SO NO ONE EVER CAMPAIGNS FOR ITS REPEAL. WELL, LET ME JUST WITH THOSE MAJOR SUGGESTIONS LET ME TAKE MY LAST FEW MINUTES TO FOCUS ON A COUPLE OF AREAS WHERE I THINK WE CAN EXPECT THERE TO BE A LIVELY PUBLIC DISCUSSION. (LAUGHTER) AND I DON'T MEAN JUST INVOLVING US IN THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY. I MEAN AS

BETWEEN US AND OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS LEGISLATION. YES, THERE IS A LOT OF GOODWILL OUT THERE. IN FACT I THINK TO THE CREDIT OF THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT. I THINK THAT THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, THAT THE BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR AND OTHERS ARE GETTING THE MESSAGE THAT SOMETHING NEW IS COMING AND PEOPLE ARE COMING FORWARD TO CONSTRUCTIVELY DISCUSS HOW IT SHOULD BE SHAPED AND THAT'S FABULOUS AND FRANKLY WE'RE NOT ALL GOING TO AGREE AND THAT'S FINE TOO, BUT WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO EXPECT A COUPLE OF BIG ISSUES TO COME UP. THEY HAVE BEEN TOUCHED ON HERE. LET ME SUGGEST WHAT I'M EXPECTING. LET ME OFFER SOME TIPS OF WHAT YOU AND I CAN SAY IN RESPONSE. TWO ARGUMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO FACE -- TWO COMMENTS. ONE IS GOING TO BE WE DON'T IT HAD NEED ALL THIS NEW LAW. WE JUST NEED TO RAISE AWARENESS. WE JUST NEED TO EDUCATE PEOPLE AND THEN THESE BARRIERS, THEY'LL GO AWAY. AND THE SECOND IS -- AND A COUPLE OF PEOPLE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE -- WE NEED GOVERNMENT FUNDING IF THERE'S GOING TO BE REAL ACTION BY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO REMOVE BARRIERS. LET ME ADDRESS BOTH OF THOSE FIRST. WE ALL AGREE THAT MANY OUT THERE WHO CREATE BARRIERS OR PRESERVE BARRIERS OR DON'T REMOVE BARRIERS AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, THEY DON'T DO

IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE US. THEY OFTEN DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER AND IT'S TRUE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO EDUCATE THEM, TO RAISE THEIR AWARENESS. NOBODY DISAGREES ABOUT THAT. HOWEVER, WE IN THE ODA MOVEMENT -- IN THE MOVEMENT FOR A BARRIER-FREE PROVINCE, WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO EDUCATE PEOPLE FOR HOW MANY DECADES? HOW OLD ARE YOU? AT LEAST YOU HAVE BEEN DOING IT AT LEAST AS OLD AS YOU ARE IF NOT LONGER. THE REALITY IS WE HAVE LEARNED THAT WHILE EDUCATION, RAISING AWARENESS, SHOWCASING BEST PRACTICES ARE HELPFUL ACTIVITIES, THEY ALONE HAVEN'T WORKED. THEY ALONE WON'T WORK. THEY WILL WORK WHEN THEY ARE BACKED BY A GOOD EFFECTIVE ENFORCEABLE LAW. (APPLAUSE). BUT WE'RE ALSO IN A POSITION TO SAY THAT THERE MAY BE BETTER WAYS TO EDUCATE AND RAISE AWARENESS THAN WE HAVE BEEN TRYING IN THE PAST. THE ODA COMMITTEE IN OUR DISCUSSION PAPER ON YOUR DISK PUT FORWARD ONE PROPOSAL IN THAT AREA. I'M GOING TO MENTION IT. YOU CAN THINK ABOUT IT AND IF YOU LIKE IT, YOU CAN EVEN SPEAK OUT IN FAVOR OF IT. HERE'S THE PROPOSAL. WE NEED NOT A BUNCH OF PRETTY TV ADS THAT WITH MUSHY MUSIC, ISN'T IT NICE TO GET RID OF BARRIERS, AND ALL THAT KIND OF PRETTY STUFF. IT'S GOOD FOR THE TV NETWORKS BECAUSE THEY GET SOME REVENUES AND PEOPLE WATCH THEM AND THEY FEEL GOOD AS THEY'RE WAITING FOR THE NEXT INNING OF THE

BALL GAME, BUT THEY DON'T ACTUALLY CHANGE A WHOLE LOT OF BUSINESS PRACTICES. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHAT WE WOULD BENEFIT FROM ARE A COUPLE OF TARGETED EDUCATION INITIATIVES. FOR EXAMPLE HOW ABOUT THIS? WHAT IF WE IDENTIFY A FEW PROFESSIONS THAT CAN MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN OUR LIVES AND WHAT IF WE SAY THAT TO GET A LICENSE IN THOSE PROFESSIONS IN THE FUTURE, YOUR TRAINING MUST INCLUDE A COMPONENT ON DISABILITY ACCESSIBILITY. HOW ABOUT ARCHITECTS? IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT ANY PERSON IN THE FUTURE WHO IS GOING TO GET A LICENSE TO PRACTICE AS AN ARCHITECT SHOULD KNOW HOW TO DESIGN A BUILDING THAT EVERYBODY CAN USE. HOW ABOUT DARE I SAY IT? LAWYERS. (LAUGHTER) HOW ABOUT REQUIRING LAWYERS TO LEARN HOW TO SERVE CLIENTS WITH DISABILITIES AS PART OF THEIR TRAINING? >> ABSOLUTELY.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEW LAWYERS IN THE FUTURE. IT WOULD BE GREAT IF EXISTING LAWYERS COULD LEARN IT BUT LET'S JUST FOCUS ON THE NEXT GENERATION. WE CAN SAY THE SAME FOR DOCTORS, NURSES AND TEACHERS. YOU MIGHT THINK OF OTHERS BUT THESE ARE JUST IDEAS. SO THE IDEA WOULD BE TO ASK THESE PROFESSIONS TO DEVELOP TRAINING UNITS THAT IN THE FUTURE AFTER THEY HAVE DEVELOPED THEM, PEOPLE WOULD NEED TO PASS THROUGH AS PART

OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL TRAINING SO THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO SERVE ALL PEOPLE, INCLUDING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. LET ME TELL YOU ANOTHER IDEA FOR EDUCATION. WHO ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVELY EDUCATED PEOPLE IN OUR SOCIETY? WHO ARE THE EASIEST PEOPLE TO TEACH? KIDS. THAT'S WHY WE SEND THEM TO SCHOOL! NOT OURSELVES! (LAUGHTER). WHAT IF WE INCLUDED IN THE ODA A PROVISION THAT SAID THAT SCHOOL BOARDS SHOULD INCLUDE A TEACHING CURRICULUM COMPONENT ON DISABILITY ACCESSIBILITY? IMAGINE KIDS GOING HOME AT NIGHT TALKING TO MOM AND DAD ABOUT THE BARRIERS THEY HAVE LEARNED ABOUT AND, BY THE WAY, WHAT'S YOUR OFFICE LIKE? YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD BE A PHENOMENAL OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE NEXT GENERATION GROW UP MORE ENLIGHTENED ON THESE ISSUES THAN ANY GENERATION BEFORE. THAT MAKES EDUCATION AND RAISING AWARENESS FAR MORE THAN FEEL GOOD SENSITIVITY TV ADS. SOMETHING THAT COULD REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. LET ME TAKE MY LAST FEW MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE OF COST. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT CHANGING OUR SOCIETY TO MAKE IT BARRIER-FREE WILL INVOLVE SOME COST. OF COURSE IT PROBABLY WILL INVOLVE A LOT LESS COST THAN SOME PEOPLE THINK BECAUSE THEIR STEREOTYPES THAT LEAD

PEOPLE TO THINK THAT THIS IS ALL EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE BUT THE ANSWER WE CAN EXPECT AND WE KNOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT HEARD THIS DURING ITS CONSULTATIONS FROM THE ASSOCIATION AND MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO AND OTHERS, BASICALLY SAYING IF YOU WANT US TO MAKE THESE CHANGES PROVINCE, PAY FOR THEM. WELL WHAT'S THE ANSWER? WELL IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO WOULD COME UP WITH FUNDS TO HELP COVER THIS COST. NO QUESTION AND IF THE GOVERNMENT DOES, THAT WOULD BE FABULOUS AND WE ENCOURAGE THEM TO, BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT WE LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT WAS LEFT WITH A HUGE DEFICIT AND WHATEVER FUNDS THEY COME UP WITH, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO COVER ALL THE COSTS SO WHAT DO WE DO? DO WE SAY OKAY NOBODY SHOULD HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. I'M SORRY WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY THAT AT ALL AND HERE'S WHY. FIRST COULD YOU IMAGINE A MUNICIPALITY OR A BUSINESS OR A HOSPITAL SAYING, "WE WILL NOT SERVE WOMEN UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR THE COST."? WE'RE CLOSING OUR DOORS TO WOMEN, OR WE'RE CLOSING OUR DOORS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE RACIAL MINORITIES. WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THEM IN UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT COVERS EVERY LAST COST WE EXPERIENCE IN LETTING THEM IN. THAT WOULDN'T BE FAIR. THAT WOULDN'T BE ACCEPTABLE.

>> I LOVE RADICALS!

DAVID LEPOFSKY: ON THE OTHER HAND,

ORGANIZATIONS SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT SERVING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. SECOND, THE REALITY IS WE WANT THE ODA IN THE END TO MAKE MONEY FOR BUSINESS. IF A BUSINESS RIGHT NOW HAS A STEP AT ITS FRONT DOOR, AND IT DOESN'T MAKE THAT FRONT DOOR ACCESSIBLE, IT'S LOSING OUT ON SALES TO PEOPLE WITH MOBILITY DISABILITIES, IT'S LOSING OUT ON SALES WITH THEIR FAMILIES. SPEND A BIT OF MONEY. FIX THAT ONE STEP. YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A CHUNK OF CHANGE. WE WANT AN EFFECTIVE ODA THAT WILL MAKE BUSINESS MONEY, BUT TO MAKE A BUCK SOME TIMES YOU HAVE GOT TO SPEND A BUCK. SPEND A BUCK AND YOU CAN MAKE A BUNCH. WE WOULD LIKE AN ODA DESIGNED FOR THAT PURPOSE. THIRD. THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE RIGHT NOW PROVIDES A REQUIREMENT ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND TO SPEND FUNDS ON THAT UP TO THE POINT OF UNDUE HARDSHIP. THAT MONEY IS ALREADY ALLOCATED BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE. IF ORGANIZATIONS AREN'T SPENDING IT NOW, THEY HAVE GOT TO START AND THEY CAN'T SAY WE WON'T SPEND IT. THE GOVERNMENT HAS GOT TO PAY THE WHOLE FREIGHT. THE LAW ALREADY SAYS THAT THEY'RE EXPECTED TO CONTRIBUTE SOMEWHAT TO THE COST OF DOING THINGS. AND FINALLY IN DEALING WITH THE ISSUE

OF COSTS, I THINK THAT WE CAN SAY -- WE HAVE SAID SINCE THE VERY FIRST DAY WE ALL STARTED, WE KNOW THAT SOME BARRIERS WILL BE VERY INEXPENSIVE TO REMOVE. THOSE SHOULD BE REMOVED QUICKLY. IF IT COSTS MORE, THEN THE ORGANIZATION SHOULD GET MORE TIME TO DO IT. IF IT'S A BIG ORGANIZATION WITH A LOT MORE MONEY, WE HAVE GOT TO BE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND WILL EXPECT MORE OF THEM. IF IT'S SMALL BUSINESS WE HAVE GOT TO GIVE THEM A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE THEY HAVE LESS RESOURCES AND WE HAVE TO BE VERY SENSITIVE TO THEIR SITUATION. SAME WITH SMALL MUNICIPALITIES AS COMPARED TO BIG MUNICIPALITIES. AND IF THERE'S LESS MONEY AVAILABLE TO COVER THE COSTS, THEY GET MORE TIME TO BE ABLE TO SPREAD THIS OUT OVER TIME SO THAT THEY'RE NEVER FORCED TO DO ANYTHING THAT'S UNAFFORDABLE TO THEM. WE WANT BUSINESSES, WE WANT COMMUNITIES TO SEE THIS AS A WIN-WIN PROPOSITION. SO IF I CAN JUST CONCLUDE THAT POINT, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WHEN PEOPLE RAISE THE ISSUE OF EDUCATION AND RAISING AWARENESS, YES, IT'S GOOD, YES IT'S IMPORTANT. WE HAVE GOT SOME CONSTRUCTIVE NEW WAYS THAT SHOULD BE DONE BUT IT'S NO SUBSTITUTE FOR A MANDATORY ENFORCEABLE LAW. AND SECOND WHEN PEOPLE -- IF ANYBODY WAS TO ARGUE THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING UNLESS THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT PAYS 100% OF THE FREIGHT, I HAVE OFFERED YOU WHAT I THINK ARE PRETTY PERSUASIVE

ANSWERS ON WHY THAT'S NOT A REASONABLE POSITION OR EXPECTATION TO COME FORWARD WITH. LET ME CONCLUDE WITH ONE OTHER THING I ASK YOU TO TURN YOUR MIND TO. I TALKED ABOUT THINGS YOU COULD DO, PROPOSALS YOU COULD MAKE, WHAT TO EXPECT OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS AND MONTHS. IN THE END WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY FOR THE GOVERNMENT SOME CORE PRIORITIES. WE COULD MAKE UP A LIST OF EVERYTHING WE NEED. WE CAN MAKE UP A LIST OF EVERYTHING WE WANT. IT WOULD GO ON FOR PAGES. IT WOULD GO ON FOR DOZENS OF PAGES. IT WOULD BE HUGE. AND GOVERNMENTS CAN'T DO EVERYTHING. WHAT POLITICIANS WILL TURN TO US AND ASK: WHAT ARE YOUR TOP PRIORITIES? AND IN AN ODA -- IN AN ODA THAT SEEKS TO MAKE A BARRIER-FREE SOCIETY, THEY'RE GOING TO TURN TO US AND SAY, "ALL RIGHT, IF WE'RE GOING TO TACKLE SOCIETY, WHAT AREAS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES TO TACKLE FIRST?" NOW THERE'S NO ONE PERSON OUT THERE THAT IS GOING TO ABSOLUTELY HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT ANSWER THAT COVERS EVERYBODY. WE HAVE ALL GOT TO TURN OUR MINDS TO IT AND THE PRIORITIES MAY BE DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHO YOU ARE, WHERE YOU LIVE, WHAT YOUR DISABILITY IN AND HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THESE THINGS. THE ODA COMMITTEE TWO YEARS AGO PROPOSED TO THE LAST GOVERNMENT CERTAIN PRIORITY AREAS THAT WE THOUGHT MADE SENSE, AND THE FEEDBACK WE GOT ON IT

WAS QUITE POSITIVE. IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT AND YOU MAY THINK OF SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I HAVE BEEN ADDING ONE TO THAT LIST AND PUTTING FORWARD MINE. I PUT THESE FORWARD FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT, FOR YOU TO REFLECT ON, FOR YOU TO CONSIDER AND TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK NOT HERE AND TODAY BUT AFTERWARDS. WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT TODAY BUT ALSO AFTERWARDS. THE FIVE PRIORITY AREAS NOT LISTED IN ORDER OF PRIORITY ARE THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; THE EDUCATION SYSTEM; INCLUDING SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE -- THAT'S SECOND -- THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM; ACCESS TO RETAIL CHAIN STORES -- THAT'S BIG BUSINESSES THAT PROVIDE RETAIL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY. THOSE ARE THE FOUR WE HAVE IDENTIFIED AND I WOULD ADD A FIFTH THAT WE GOT BACK IS ACCESSIBLE HOUSING. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LEAVE THESE WITH YOU TO THINK (B) IF WE COULD HAVE THE ODA TO FOCUS ON THOSE PRIORITY AREAS FIRST, NOT EXCLUSIVELY, BUT AS THE FIRST THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE EARLIEST YEARS WE MAY FIND THAT A NEW STRENGTHENED ODA HAS HAD THE GREATEST POSSIBLE IMPACT ON EVERYBODY BECAUSE EACH OF THOSE AREAS TOUCHES AS BETWEEN ALL OF THOSE AREAS AT LEAST ONE, IF NOT TWO OR THREE TOUCHES ALL OF OUR LIVES TO VARYING DEGREES. I CONCLUDE BY ACKNOWLEDGING WITH

GRATITUDE THE WORK OF THOSE WHO HAVE ORGANIZED THIS CONFERENCE AND BY DRAWING UPON THE MEMORY OF MICHAEL LEWIS. SADLY MICHAEL DIED BEFORE OUR VISION OF A STRONG, EFFECTIVE ODA WAS PASSED BUT HE LIVED LONG ENOUGH TO SEE A NEW GOVERNMENT IN PLACE THAT PROMISED WOULD TAKE REAL ACTION AND I WAS ABLE IN MY LAST CONVERSATION WITH HIM SHORTLY BEFORE HE PASSED AWAY TO TELL HIM OF MY OPTIMISM ABOUT WHAT THE NEXT MONTHS SHOULD YIELD FOR US BUT WE TAKE NOTHING FOR GRANTED. WE HAVE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO NOW AND IT'S NOT EASY WORK. IT'S NOT COMPLAINING. IT'S PROPOSING. IT'S NOT TEARING DOWN. IT'S BUILDING UP. AND WE NEED ALL OF YOUR HELP TO MAKE THIS THE NEXT ROUND WE WIN IN OUR LONG VOYAGE DOWN THE ROAD TO A BARRIER-FREE ONTARIO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR INVITING ME TO SPEAK. (APPLAUSE). WE NEED JUST ONE MINUTE FOR THE PANEL TO COME UP FOR THE AFTERNOON PANEL AND WE'LL GET TO WORK.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: MY NAME IS DAVID LEPOFSKY. I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT LAST PERSON WHO WAS SPEAKING. (LAUGHTER) I LOOK AT HIM. HE LOOKS NOTHING LIKE ME AS FAR AS I CAN TELL. THIS MORNING WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE ODA TO ACHIEVE. THIS

AFTERNOON'S PANEL IS GOING TO DEAL WITH THE CHALLENGING TOPIC OF HOW TO CREATE AN EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE, ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. I AM GOING TO GIVE ONE MINUTE TO GIVE BACKGROUND AND I'M GOING TO HAVE EACH OF OUR FOUR PANELISTS ANSWER A QUESTION WHAT THE HECK CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THIS? LET ME JUST GIVE THE ONE MINUTE BACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE. THE CURRENT WEAK ODA -- ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT -- IS SUPPOSE TO ADDRESS BARRIERS WE FACE BUT IT PROVIDES FOR NO COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM. IT LEAVES BARRIER REMOVAL ENTIRELY OPTIONAL AND WE AS A DISABILITY RIGHTS MOVEMENT FOR YEARS HAS SAID THERE HAS GOT TO BE AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. LIBERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTED TO IMPLEMENT ONE. THAT'S THE FIRST ONE. BUT THE IMPORTANT PART FOLLOWS FROM THAT WHICH IS, OKAY, WHAT'S IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE? WELL, WHAT WE HAVE GOT IN ONTARIO ALREADY WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT THIS MORNING IS BEING VERY WEAK AND INEFFECTIVE FROM OTHER LAWS. WE HAVE A HUMAN RIGHTS CODE THAT SAYS DON'T DISCRIMINATE. YOU HAVE TO FILE AN INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT, SPEND YEARS DEALING WITH THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, AS WE HAVE HEARD FROM VARIOUS SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE AND FROM THE PANELS THIS MORNING THERE ARE

LONG DELAYS AND IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING AND PEOPLE GET QUITE ANGRY OR DON'T EVEN BOTHER AND WE HAVE GOT TO FIGHT ONE BARRIER AT A TIME SO WE HAVE ALREADY TRIED THAT APPROACH. WHAT ELSE CAN WE TRY? WE HAVE ALSO GOT A BUILDING CODE. IT'S GOT ITS OWN WEAKNESSES. WE HAVE HEARD ALL ABOUT IT. WHAT ELSE CAN WE TRY? SO WE THOUGHT FOR THIS PANEL IT WOULD BE INTERESTING NOT TO BRING UP PEOPLE WHO ARE SPECIALISTS IN DISABILITY RIGHTS, BUT FRANKLY PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT DISABILITIES RIGHTS. KNOW OTHER AREAS OF THE LAW, WHERE PEOPLE HAVE TRIED OTHER METHODS OF ENFORCEMENT TO FIND OUT FROM THEM WHAT THEY CAN TELL US THAT WE CAN LEARN SO THAT'S WHAT OUR FOUR SPEAKERS ARE EACH GOING TO TALK TO US ABOUT. SO THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERTS BUT IN OTHER AREAS. LET'S SEE WHAT NEW WE CAN BORROW FROM OTHER AREAS. YOUR MATERIALS FROM THE CONFERENCE GIVES YOU EVERYBODY'S BIOGRAPHY SO I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO ANY DETAILS OTHER THAN TO TELL YOU THESE ARE A BUNCH OF VERY WELL TRAINED FOLKS WHO KNOW THEIR AREAS VERY WELL AND THEY HAVE BEEN VERY GENEROUS WITH THEIR TIME. I AM GOING TO INTRODUCE THEM ONLY BY NAME AND LET THEM ANSWER EACH A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION WHICH IS WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM YOU ABOUT THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US AND THEN AFTER THEY HAVE EACH TALK ABOUT TEN MINUTES I'LL DO SOME

FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS AND HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE SOME TIME FOR YOU TO DO SOME FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS TOO. AS YOU LISTEN TO THEM, LISTEN TO THE THINGS THAT THEY PROPOSE AND ASK YOURSELF, ACT LIKE YOU'RE IN A RESTAURANT AND THEY'RE GIVING YOU THE MENU BUT IT'S A BUFFET SO YOU CAN TRY A LITTLE OF EVERYTHING. (LAUGHTER) ALL RIGHT. AND SEE WHAT YOU CAN COME UP WITH. OUR FIRST SPEAKER WILL BE KEN JULL WHO IS ON MY FAR RIGHT. THAT'S NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT, (LAUGHTER), FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL LYNK WHO WILL BE SECOND FOLLOWED BY RANDAL GRAHAM AND FOLLOWED BY DR. AGOCS. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE SO YOU KNOW WHERE IT'S COMING FROM AND WE MAY FIND SOME REAL SURPRISES WHERE WE CAN GET SOME GOOD IDEAS. KEN, TELL US WHAT YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE IS AND WHAT YOU CAN TELL US THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO LEARN FROM ABOUT HOW ENFORCEMENT COMPLIANCE CAN BE DONE UNDER ODA.

KEN JULL: IT'S JUST A FANCY WORD FOR SAYING "CRIMES". I BOTH PROSECUTE AND DEFEND IN AREAS SUCH AS THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS AS WELL AS SECURITIES AND COMPETITION IN WHAT ARE CALLED QUASI-CRIMINAL OR REGULATORY OFFENCES. I WANT TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE

POSSIBILITY OF USING THE OFFENCE MECHANISM, CRIMES AS THEY WERE, TO ENFORCE THE NEW ODA. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE IS NON-COMPLIANCE, YOU MAKE IT AN OFFENCE AND YOU PROSECUTE PEOPLE FOR NOT COMPLYING. NOW THERE'S FOUR DIFFERENT MODELS THAT I WANT TO PUT BEFORE YOU AS POSSIBLE IDEAS AND ALL OF THEM ARE DRIVEN FROM EXPERIENCE IN AREAS THAT I HAVE PROSECUTED OR DEFEND. I AM GOING TO START WITH THE PRIVATE MODEL. UNDER THE FISHERIES ACT THERE IS A LITTLE KNOWN PROVISION WHICH SAYS IF YOU GO OUT TOMORROW -- HOPEFULLY THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN -- AND YOU FIND THE STREAM HAS POLLUTION IN IT AND THAT HASN'T BEEN PROSECUTED, THE GOVERNMENT HASN'T FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, OR IF THEY HAVEN'T ALLOCATED THE RESOURCES, YOU CAN LAY A PRIVATE INFORMATION YOURSELF UNDER THE FISHERIES ACT. NOW THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE IT OVER AND IF THEY PROSECUTE IT, AND IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL IN PROSECUTING THE OWNER OF THAT FACTORY, OR THE GOVERNMENT MUNICIPALITY THAT LETS THAT POLLUTION HAPPEN, YOU AS THE INFORMANT GET ONE HALF OF THE FINE. NOW IN THE CASE OF THE CITY OF HAMILTON, THEY WENT OUT AND THEY FOUND POLLUTION. THE FINE ON A GUILTY PLEA WAS $450,000. SIERRA (PHOEN) PICKED UP $225,000 AND THEY THEN USED THAT TO GO OUT AND

BUY A COUPLE OF BOATS WHICH THEY NOW USE POLICING LAKE ONTARIO, AND SO I SHOULD TELL YOU THAT I WAS AGAINST SIERRA (PHOEN). I DEFENDED A CASE WHERE THEY BROUGHT ONE OF THESE CASES. I LIKE THEM. I THINK THEY'RE A GREAT ORGANIZATION. SO THAT'S THE PRIVATE MODEL. NOW THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS WITH IT THOUGH. TALKING ABOUT THE MENU. THIS ONE DOES ADD SOME -- A POSSIBILITY OF A BAD TASTE AND HERE'S WHAT IT IS. IT CREATES THIS WEIRD KIND OF DYNAMIC BECAUSE IT GIVES THE PROSECUTOR A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE, AND WHAT I FOUND WHEN I WAS DEFENDING WAS THERE WAS SOME FRUSTRATION BECAUSE WE WOULD SAY, "WHY DON'T WE SETTLE THIS CASE? LET'S SAY WE TAKE THE $450,000 AND RATHER THAN PAYING A FINE, HALF OF WHICH GOES TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND HALF OF WHICH GOES TO THE COMPLAINANT, WHY DON'T WE SPEND THE 450,000 I SAY AS A DEFENCE LAWYER ON REMEDIATING THE STREAM OR TO USE YOUR EXAMPLE LET'S TAKE 450,000 AND SPEND IT ON OUTFITTING A BUILDING THAT'S IN NON-COMPLIANCE?", BUT NOW WE HAVE GOT A PROBLEM. YOU'RE THINKING TO YOURSELF THAT'S ALL VERY NICE BUT I REALLY WANT MY 225,000 TO HELP FUND FURTHER PROSECUTIONS. NOW YOU HAVE GOT A WEIRD KIND OF DYNAMIC GOING ON ABOUT IS THIS ABOUT REMEDIATION OR IS THIS ABOUT PUNISHMENT OR IS THIS ABOUT MAKING MONEY?

I JUST PUT THAT OUT. THAT'S THE FIRST MODEL. THE SECOND MODEL IS THE MORE CLASSIC STATE CRIMINAL MODEL WHERE THE STATE PROSECUTES EITHER A REGULATORY OFFENCE OR TRUE CRIMES. IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT'S PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION, IF THEY CHOSE THIS ROUTE THEY WOULD CREATE WHAT'S CALLED A REGULATORY OFFENCE, AND LET ME TELL YOU -- I KNOW YOU GUYS AREN'T LAWYERS -- THIS KIND OF OFFENCE IS KIND OF A WEIRD THING BUT THERE ARE TWO TYPES. ONE IS WHAT'S CALLED ABSOLUTE LIABILITY. A CLASSIC SPEEDING OFFENCE. IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPEEDING, YOU PAY YOUR FINE. THERE'S NO DEFENCE OF MENS REA. YOU DON'T GET TO SAY WHEN THE POLICE OFFICER PULLS YOU OVER, "WELL I DIDN'T MEAN TO SPEED. I WAS TALKING TO MY WIFE. I DIDN'T MEAN TO SPEED." IT'S NOT AN DEFENCE. THEY CAN USE THAT METHOD. IF YOU'RE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ODA, YOU HAVEN'T MADE A BUILDING ACCESSIBLE, NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW REQUIREMENTS OR REGS, YOU HAVE TO PAY A FINE. THERE'S NO DEFENCE. THE OTHER TYPE IS A LITTLE MORE SERIOUS. IT'S CALLED A STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCE AND IT'S USED IN AREAS LIKE THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE THERE'S POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT LIKE WE SAW IN WALKERTON. IT'S USED IN AREAS SUCH AS OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY.

DANGER TO WORKERS. THOSE OFFENCES POTENTIALLY CARRY TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT OF UP TO THREE YEARS. IT CAN BE ACTUALLY UP TO FIVE YEARS BELIEVE IT OR NOT. THE SECURITIES ACT - A FIVE YEAR TERM. YOU CAN GO TO THE PENITENTIARY FOR VIOLATING SECURITIES ACT SO MAYBE THAT'S AN OPTION. NOW THE DIFFICULTY IS IF YOU GO THAT ROUTE -- AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT --THEN THERE IS A DEFENCE. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DEFENCE IF YOU'RE LIABLE TO GO TO IMPRISONMENT BY VIRTUE OF THE CHARTER. IT'S CALLED A DUE DILIGENCE DEFENCE. TWO KINDS OF CHANGES TO THESE TRIALS. THE FIRST STAGE THE PROSECUTOR HAS TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE STATUTE WAS VIOLATED. PROVE THERE WAS NO ACCESS. THEN THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE DEFENCE. THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE CORPORATION OR THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING TO SHOW ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES WHY IT IS THEY EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE. DO THEY HAVE AN EXCUSE? IF THEY HAVE AN EXCUSE, LET'S HEAR IT. THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF GETTING IN THE WITNESS BOX AND EXPLAINING IT. NOW THE PROBLEM WITH THIS -- THERE'S SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE SECOND MODEL. NO. 1 THE SPEEDING EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATES IT. I'M SURE NONE OF YOU SPEED! (LAUGHTER) BUT JUST IN CASE YOU DO, WE ALL KNOW THAT WHAT HAPPENS IS PEOPLE DO A LITTLE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND THEY THINK TO THEMSELVES, NO. 1, HOW MANY

POLICEMEN ARE THERE? WHAT TIME OF THE MORNING IS IT? IF YOU SEE SOMEBODY PULLED OVER YOU THINK, OKAY, WELL THEY GOT THAT GUY SO IT'S PRETTY CLEAR FOR THE NEXT LITTLE WHILE. EVERYBODY DOES A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS BUT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS -- AND THIS IS GOING TO DOVETAIL BACK TO WHAT I HEARD THIS MORNING -- IS MONEY. THE ONLY WAY IT WORKS IF YOU HIRE POLICEMEN TO POLICE IT. THE ONLY WAY THAT'S GOING TO WORK IF THE GOVERNMENT IF THEY GO THIS ROUTE AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE PRIVATE ROUTE, IF THEY FUND INSPECTORS. THIS IS ONE OF THE CLASSIC PROBLEMS IN THE LAST FIVE, TEN YEARS IN THE REGULATORY AREA. IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL AREA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY, THE LEVEL OF INSPECTORS HAVE GONE UP AND DOWN AND BUDGET CUTS, FOR EXAMPLE, CAN AFFECT THAT SO, FOLKS, YOU CAN MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, $500 PENALTY FOR GOING 20 MILES OVER THE LIMIT, EVERY 20 KILOMETERS OVER THE LIMIT, BUT IF THERE IS NO POLICE OFFICERS OUT THERE, IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THERE HAS GOT TO BE FUNDING IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO THIS ROUTE FOR A GOOD LEVEL OF INSPECTORS, FOLKS, THAT KNOW ABOUT DISABILITIES, AS DAVID HAS SAID, ARE EDUCATED ABOUT DISABILITIES AND KNOW HOW TO INVESTIGATE A CASE. NOW THE ONE ADVANTAGE OF GOING THIS ROUTE IS YOU CAN BE VERY SPECIFIC. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT, UNDER THOSE REGULATIONS IF YOU'RE BUILDING A BUILDING, AND IT'S ABOVE A CERTAIN HEIGHT, YOU HAVE GOT TO BUILD A GARDEN RAIL SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T FALL OUT OF. IT'S GOT TO BE 14.2 INCHES AND IF THE INSPECTOR COMES OUT AND IT'S 14.1 INCHES, THE OFFENCE IS MADE THERE. YOU CAN BE VERY SPECIFIC AND IT'S A GOOD MECHANISM IN THAT WAY SO YOU'RE NOT FOOLING AROUND WITH VAGUE AMBIGUOUS TERMS. YOU CAN BE SPECIFIC. THE THIRD ADVANTAGE OF THE CRIMINAL METHOD I'M GOING TO CALL IT IS PUBLICITY. COMPANIES LIKE FORD LEARNED THAT LESSON IN THE PINTO CASE. THE PINTO CASE IS A VERY FAMOUS CASE WHERE FORD WAS ACTUALLY CHARGED WITH THE CRIME OF MURDER MANY YEARS AGO AND THE REASON THEY WERE CHARGED WITH THAT CRIME WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAD DONE A COST BENEFIT CALCULATION THAT TRADED OFF NOT DOING A RECALL FOR THE PINTO AND THEY CALLED THEIR LAWYERS AND SAID, "HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST US IF WE DON'T DO THIS RECALL AND WE HAVE TO PAY DAMAGES?" IT WORKED OUT TO ABOUT 50,000,000 AND WHAT THAT MEANT IS THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE BURNED AND MAIMED IN ACCIDENTS. THAT THEY WOULD PAY 50,000,000 IN DAMAGES. "HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST TO DO THE RECALL?" WELL THERE WERE 11,000,000 PINTOS; COSTS 11 BUCKS PER PINTO TO PUT THIS BRACKET IN. THEY SAID,

"THAT'S $135,000,000." SO THEY DID THEIR MATH. 135,000,000 TO FIX IT; FIFTY TO PAY OUT TO PEOPLE WHO GET BURNED AND KILLED. WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY DID? THEY DIDN'T FIX IT. BUT WHAT THEY UNDERESTIMATED IS THE ADVERSE PUBLICITY AND PEOPLE STARTED SUING THEM AND THEY GOT CHARGED WITH MURDER AND IT WAS NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESS (LAUGHTER) AND THERE IS AN ASPECT THAT CAN APPLY HERE. IF A BIG COMPANY WITH A GOOD REPUTATION STARTS GETTING CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE DISABILITIES ACT, THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESS, ALL RIGHT, SO ALTHOUGH I WILL SAY THIS -- AND I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THIS -- ONE OF THE THINGS SOMETHING LIKE PINTOS THAT EVERYBODY EMPATHIZES WITH PEOPLE DRIVING PINTOS -- ALL OF US MIGHT BUY A PINTO -- I WORRY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE AREA OF DISABILITY IN BAD PUBLICITY. A LOT OF PEOPLE MIGHT SAY, 'A COMPANY DIDN'T COMPLY BUT THAT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT ME IF I'M NOT DISABLED SO I DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT.' OKAY. NOW WE TALKED ABOUT A THIRD METHOD. THE THIRD METHOD IS WHAT I ADVOCATE AND TWO CO-AUTHORS OF MINE, JUSTICE TODD ARCHIBALD AND PROFESSOR KENT ROACH ARE PUBLISHING A BOOK THIS FALL ENTITLED "REGULATORY AND CORPORATE LIABILITY: FROM DUE DILIGENCE TO RISK MANAGEMENT" FORTHCOMING FROM CANADA LAW BOOK. IT'S WHAT WE CALL THE PYRAMID APPROACH. IT HAS ITS ORIGINS IN

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE CONCEPTS. JOHN BRAITHWAITE WHO DEVELOPED THIS IN AUSTRALIA. YOU START WITHOUT PUNISHMENT. YOU START BY USING THINGS LIKE AUDIT. YOU START BY WARNINGS. YOU START BY EDUCATION BUT YOU'RE NOT STILL NAIVE TO BELIEVE THAT THAT BY ITSELF WILL WORK. LET'S BE REALISTIC. IF YOU THINK THAT, YOU'RE BEING NAIVE. THE IDEA OF THE PYRAMID IS WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A FIRST CHANCE. NOW, IF WE COME BACK AND YOU HAVEN'T FIXED THE PROBLEM, YOU'RE GOING TO GO UP THE PYRAMID AND NEXT TIME WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A PENALTY. MAYBE A FINE. IF WE COME BACK A THIRD TIME, AND YOU HAVEN'T FIXED THE PROBLEM, WE'LL GO UP THE PYRAMID AGAIN, BUT THIS TIME WE'RE GOING TO THINK ABOUT SUSPENDING YOUR BUSINESS LICENSE, AND IF THE LAST TIME WE COME BACK AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T FIX THE PROBLEM, WE'RE GOING TO PUT YOUR DIRECTORS IN JAIL, OKAY. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS WE ASSUME EVERYBODY'S BAD SO WE GO TO THE FIRST MECHANISM FIRST AND THAT'S PUNITIVE AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE. A LOT OF TIMES IT'S NON-COMPLIANCE DUE TO IGNORANCE AND OTHER REASONS, AND I WANT TO TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT BRAITHWAITE SAID BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT. HE GREW UP IN A COAL MINING TOWN OF

IPSWICH IN AUSTRALIA, A TOWN THAT HAD EXPERIENCED A MINE EXPLOSION THAT KILLED 17 MINERS, AND HE STARTED OFF TO WRITE A BOOK ABOUT THE MINING INDUSTRY AND I WANT TO READ THIS TO YOU. I THINK IT RESONATES THIS MORNING. "I EXPECTED ONE DAY TO WRITE AN ANGRY BOOK ABOUT DEATH IN THE MINES. THIS MODEST AND DISPASSIONATE CONTRIBUTION HARDLY MEETS THAT ASPIRATION, BUT I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT MIGHT ULTIMATELY BENEFIT MINERS MORE THAN A BOOK DIRECTING FIRE AND BRIMSTONE ON THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR MINE FACILITIES." WHAT I SAW THIS MORNING WAS A LOT OF ANGER AND UNDERSTANDABLY ANGER. WHAT ANGERS LEADS TO IS THE IMMEDIATE PUNITIVE RESPONSE WE HAVE TO PUNISH PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT COMPLYING BUT THAT SOMETIMES IS WRONG BECAUSE SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE NOT COMPLYING BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT -- THEY'RE NOT AWARE, AS DAVID SAID, AND ALSO -- THIS IS GOING TO THE ISSUE OF MENU -- IF YOU USE THIS METHOD, THERE ARE SOME SIDE EFFECTS ONE OF WHICH IS CALLED PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE. WHEN YOU PUNISH, PEOPLE REACT AND THEY HAVE EVEN SHOWN CORPORATIONS SHOW IT. THEY PUSH BACK. THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM, FOLKS, IF YOU USE THE PUNITIVE METHOD. I WILL SAY SOMETHING ABOUT LAWYERS NOW. IT HARDENS THE LINES AND MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO CORROBORATE.

ONE EXAMPLE. SUPPOSE THERE IS A NEW DISABILITIES ACT WHICH HAS GOT A LOT OF TEETH. SUPPOSE I HAVE A CLIENT THAT HASN'T COMPLIED. AN INSPECTOR COMES AROUND AND SAYS, "YOU'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NEW ODA. LOOK AT THIS. THIS IS TERRIBLE." YOU KNOW WHAT THAT CLIENT IS GOING TO DO. HE OR SHE IS GOING TO CALL ME. "I HAVE GOT THIS INSPECTOR AT THE DOOR. SHOULD I TALK TO HIM?" NOW THIS IS A PROBLEM. I'M GOING TO SAY, "WELL PUT THE INSPECTOR ON THE LINE." "ARE YOU THINKING OF CHARGING MY CLIENT OR CAN WE WORK THIS OUT?" THE INSPECTOR SAYS, "I'M THINKING OF CHARGING YOUR CLIENT." I AM GOING TO SAY, "PUT MY CLIENT BACK ON THE LINE." MY CLIENT GETS BACK ON THE LINE I AM GOING TO SAY, "IT WOULD BE IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO SAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. COOPERATE TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU HAVE TO. IF THEY HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT, LET THEM SEARCH THE PREMISES. IF THEY DON'T HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT, ASK THEM TO POLITELY TO LEAVE." IT IS ADVERSARIAL. IT'S A FIGHT AND HERE'S WHERE THE CHARTER THAT HAS HELPED YOU FOLKS OUT GETS TURNED AGAINST YOU BECAUSE NOW THE CORPORATION AND THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS PROTECTED IS ABOUT TO BE CHARGED HIS RIGHTS. IT HARDENS THE LINES AND IT MAKES COOPERATION A LOT LESS LIKELY. THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE IN THE PYRAMID APPROACH.

LET'S TRY AT THE FIRST ROUND TO SAY, "LOOK, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHARGE YOU THIS TIME. LET'S HAVE A DIALOGUE WHY YOU DIDN'T COMPLY." AND THE LAST THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS A THING CALLED -- I AM GOING TO CALL THE "COMPENSATION MODEL". IT'S OUT OF HARVARD, A WOMAN BY THE NAME OF LYNN PAINE, "VALUE SHIFT". POST-ENRON. COMPANIES START TO REALIZE YOU HAVE GOT TO COMPLY. IT'S GOOD BUSINESS. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS. COMPANIES WOULD RATHER PAY TO FIX THE PROBLEM THAN PAY ME BECAUSE I'M EXPENSIVE AND I DON'T REALLY FIX THE PROBLEM. OKAY? SO ONE OF THE NEW THINGS WE HAVE TO CONVINCE BUSINESSES ARE IT'S STAY OUT OF LEGAL TROUBLE BY COMPLYING AND WE NEED A NEW TYPE OF VALUE SHIFT POST-ENRON, POST-MARTHA STEWART. LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO MARTHA STEWART'S COMPANY. THE WHOLE NEW IDEA THAT BY GOING FORWARD AND COMPLYING WITH THE LAW, YOU NOT ONLY MAKE PROFIT, BUT YOU KEEP YOURSELF IN GOOD PUBLIC RELATION SITUATION AND YOU AVOID HAVING TO HIRE EXPENSIVE FOLKS LIKE MYSELF AND THE OTHER PANELISTS HERE. THANKS A LOT.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: VERY INFORMATIVE. WE CAN START THINKING OF IDEAS THAT WE MIGHT LIKE OR AVOID COMPLETELY.

MICHAEL LYNK, WHAT IS YOUR AREA AND WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM IT?

PROFESSOR LYNK: I PRACTICED IN A NUMBER OF AREAS. TALKING ABOUT MODELS THAT COME OUT OF THE VARIOUS STATUTES THAT REGULATE. WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IN PARTICULAR IS THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT WHICH DEALS WITH UNIONIZED WORK PLACES. ALSO LOOKING AT EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT WHICH IS BASICALLY THE BASEMENT OF RIGHTS FOR MOST NON-UNIONIZED WORKERS IN THE PROVINCE, THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT AS ITS TITLE INDICATES LOOKS AFTER THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS OF WORKERS IN THE WORKPLACE. AND, FINALLY, I WILL MENTION BRIEFLY BECAUSE I THINK CAROL WILL BE TALKING ABOUT IT IN MORE DETAIL THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT FEDERALLY. FROM THESE VARIOUS PIECES OF LEGISLATION THERE'S COME OUT FIVE DIFFERENT ENFORCEMENT MODELS THAT I WILL BRIEFLY DESCRIBE TO YOU IN THE COUPLE OF MINUTES THAT I HAVE GOT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT ALL OF WHICH I THINK HAVE SOME INTERESTING SUGGESTIONS -- SOME OF THEM MAY BE NEGATIVE LESSONS. SOME DON'T WORK VERY WELL IN THE WORKPLACE -- I'M NOT SURE IF THEY WORK VERY WELL IF THEY WERE PROPOSED TO YOU AS PART OF THE ODA, BUT OTHERS THAT HAVEN'T WORKED WELL BUT COULD WORK WELL IN AN ODA BECAUSE THERE JUST HASN'T BEEN THE RESOURCES OR THE POLITICAL COMMITMENT OR THE WILL TO WANT TO MAKE THEM WORK, AND OTHERS MAY FIT IN

VERY NICELY INTO A NEW STRENGTHENED REAL ODA. THE FIRST ONE I CALL THE COLLECTIVE VOICE ENFORCEMENT MODEL. IT RECOGNIZES THAT WORKERS INDIVIDUALLY HAVE VERY LITTLE BARGAINING POWERS ALL BY THEMSELVES VIS-A-VIS THEIR EMPLOYERS AND THEREFORE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BAND TOGETHER UNDER LAW IN UNIONS TO COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN WITH THEIR EMPLOYERS IN ORDER TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. THREE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THIS PARTICULAR MODEL. FIRST WORKERS IN A PLANT WHO WANT TO ORGANIZE HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE BY MAJORITY VOTE THAT THEY WANT A UNION AND THIS PROCESS GIVES THE UNION BOTH A MORAL AND LEGAL LEGITIMACY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE WORKERS THIS IT WINDS UP REPRESENTING. AS WELL AS WORKERS HAVE THE RIGHT IN LAW TO TAKE ACTIONS IN UNISON WITH ONE ANOTHER SUCH AS STRIKES, GRIEVANCES OR GOING TO ARBITRATION OR LOBBYING THE GOVERNMENT TO APPLY THEIR COLLECTIVE POWER. ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS WORKS VERY WELL. IT PROVIDES INDUSTRIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT. IT DOESN'T TAKE A LOT OF GOVERNMENT RESOURCES TO REGULATE AND IT CONTRIBUTES SIGNIFICANTLY TO SOCIAL STABILITY, TO NATIONAL INCOME SHARING, AND ALSO TO LATELY THE PROMOTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY IN THE WORKPLACE, BUT I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IT'S A DIFFICULT MODEL TO WANT TO TRANSPLANT INTO OTHER SOCIAL SETTINGS BECAUSE IT

GREW UP IN THE RELATIVELY UNIQUE WAY THAT EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES END UP RELATING TO ONE ANOTHER. THE SECOND MODEL I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS SOMETHING I CALL THE LIMITED REPRESENTATION ENFORCEMENT MODEL. I DON'T MEAN THAT AS JARGON. IT'S HARD TO TRY ANOTHER WAY OF DESCRIBING THIS BUT THIS MODEL -- THIS ENFORCEMENT MODEL COMES OUT OF THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT, AND THE THIS ACT APPLIES VIRTUALLY IN ALL WORKPLACES IN ONTARIO WHETHER THEY'RE UNIONIZED OR NOT. NOW THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT, ITS CORNERSTONE IS TRYING TO PROMOTE HEALTH AND SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE, TO TRY TO PUT LIABILITIES PRIMARILY ON THE SHOULDERS OF EMPLOYERS TO TRY TO LIMIT I GUESS TO EXPAND THEIR LIABILITY AND LIMIT THE DAMAGE THAT CAN BE DONE TO PEOPLE THAT THEY EMPLOY THROUGH FAULTY INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES THAT MAY INJURE PEOPLE THROUGH BAD MACHINERY, OR THROUGH DUST IN THE WORKPLACE OR CHEMICALS IN THE WORKPLACE THAT MAY CAUSE DISEASES TO EMPLOYEES. IT PRIMARILY RELIES UPON A SYSTEM OF SELF-GOVERNMENT WITHIN THAT WORKPLACE WITH A BACKUP SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT INSPECTORS. IN NON-UNIONIZED WORKPLACES WHERE IT REALLY IS NEEDED THE MOST AND WHAT WORKS PROBABLY THE LEAST EFFECTIVE. UNIONS AS THE ORGANIZED COHESIVE VOICE ON BEHALF OF EMPLOYEES AND THEY

ARE FAMILIAR WITH JOINT WORKPLACE COMMITTEES WITH EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES, BUT IN A NON-UNIONIZED WORKPLACE, WHAT THE ACT REQUIRES IS THAT EVERY WORKPLACE WITH OVER THE FIVE WORKERS HAVE A HEALTH AND SAFETY REPRESENTATIVE, AND EVERY WORKPLACE OVER 20 HAVE A HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MADE UP EQUALLY OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. THE ADVANTAGES OF THE SYSTEM OBVIOUSLY IS THAT IT INVOLVES EMPLOYEES IN A CONCERTED EFFORT, IN A LEGAL STRUCTURE IN DECISIONS THAT INVOLVE A CRUCIAL ASPECT OF THEIR OWN WORKPLACE LIVES AND THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE WHERE YOU HAVE EFFECTIVE HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEES IN A WORKPLACE IT ACTUALLY LOWERS INJURY RATES IN THAT PARTICULAR WORKPLACE. THE WEAKNESS -- THE PARTICULARLY WEAKNESS LIES IN ITS INCONSISTENCIES. THESE COMMITTEES ARE ONLY AS STRONG AS THE EMPLOYEES WHO VOLUNTEER WHO ARE RECRUITED TO SIT ON THESE COMMITTEES, AND AS YOU MAY GUESS THERE IS CONSIDERABLE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE CONFIDENCE OF UNIONIZED WORKERS AND NON-UNIONIZED WORKERS GENERALLY WON'T FIGHT THEIR EMPLOYEES OVER ISSUES WHERE THERE IS DIFFERENCES OVER THE SAFETY OF A PARTICULAR INDUSTRIAL PROCESS OR ON THE CONTAMINANTS OF A PARTICULAR CHEMICAL AND THE INSPECTION SYSTEM THAT BACKS THAT UP IS NOT THAT PARTICULARLY STRONG IN THE LAST LITTLE WHILE AS KEN WAS MENTIONING THAT WITH GOVERNMENT CUTBACKS YOU SEE

A RISE AND A FALL OF THE NUMBER OF INSPECTORS THAT WIND UP BEING HIRED AND EFFECTIVELY PATROLLING THE WORKPLACES OF ONTARIO. THIS LEADS TO A THIRD MODEL WHICH AS I HAVE ALREADY INDICATED IS THE GOVERNMENT INSPECTION ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM. YOU SEE THIS IN EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT. THIS RELIES ON GOVERNMENT INSPECTORS TO VISIT WORKPLACES SOME TIMES UNANNOUNCED TO ENSURE THESE LAWS ARE COMPLIED WITH AND THEY CAN ENTER WORKPLACES WITHOUT PERMISSION. THEY CAN TAKE NOTES, INTERVIEW EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS AND THEY CAN TAKE ACTION SUCH AS ISSUING ORDERS TO COMPLY OR SHUTTING DOWN ON UNSAFE OPERATIONS AS LONG AS THEY DON'T ENCOUNTER LAWYERS LIKE KEN WHO WILL GIVE THEM A HARD TIME. NOW THE ADVANTAGE OF AN INSPECTION SYSTEM, IT KEEPS EMPLOYERS ON THEIR TOES. THEY OFTEN DON'T KNOW WHEN AN INSPECTION IS GOING TO COME, AND IT ALSO GIVES EMPLOYEES, PARTICULARLY NON-UNIONIZED EMPLOYEES, SOME CONFIDENCE THAT THERE IS A NEUTRAL PERSON WHO CAN PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS TO SOME DEGREE. THE DISADVANTAGES OF THIS TYPE OF MODEL IS THAT IT'S ONLY AS GOOD AS THE POLITICAL WILL THAT EXISTS IN ORDER TO MAKE INSPECTION SYSTEM WORK AND GOVERNMENTS -- WHEN THEY HAVE DOWNSIZED INSPECTION SYSTEMS IN THE WORKPLACE IS ONE OF THE FIRST PLACES THEY

WANT TO DOWNSIZE. GENERALLY THOSE WHO ARE RIGHT OF CENTER WHO HAVE THE EAR AND PERHAPS THE POCKET OF EMPLOYERS OR LARGE CORPORATE INTERESTS IN A SOCIETY, AND ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT ANY CORPORATION IS GOING TO COMPLAIN TO ANY GOVERNMENT IS THE COST OF COMPLYING WITH THESE INSPECTIONS AND THESE REGULATIONS AND THEY WANT TO SEE THE INSPECTIONS CUT BACK, AND GENERALLY THE GOVERNMENTS WILL CUT THEM BACK AND SECOND OF ALL EVEN WITH THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS SYMPATHETIC TO WORKPLACE ISSUES, THEY CAN NEVER HIRE ENOUGH INSPECTORS TO TRY AND PATROL AND INSPECT AND INVESTIGATE ALL OF 1000 WORKPLACES THAT EXIST IN ONTARIO, AND THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE A FOURTH ENFORCEMENT MODEL WHICH IS INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS ENFORCEMENT MODEL. THEY HAVE THIS IN EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS. WE HAVE THIS IN HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM, OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY SYSTEM. EMPLOYEES WHO FEEL THEIR RIGHTS AREN'T BEING HONORED BY A PARTICULAR EMPLOYER. WAGES, HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES. THEY CAN FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENT THAT REGULATES THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF SOCIAL ACTIVITY AND SETS IN A PROCESS WHERE YOU HAVE INVESTIGATION OFFICERS SHOWING UP AND POSSIBLY EITHER LAYING CHARGES AGAINST AN EMPLOYER OR ISSUING AN ORDER FOR COMPLIANCE AND THERE IS AN APPEAL SYSTEM THAT IS BUILT IN WHERE THE LOSER, THE PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE ORDER, CAN WIND UP

APPEALING THAT. THE ADVANTAGES OF THIS SYSTEM IS A LEGAL RIGHT TO EMPLOYEES ON A WIDE RANGE OF AREAS TO ENFORCE THE RIGHTS THAT THEY OUGHT TO HAVE -- THEY CAN'T DO THEMSELVES -- AND SECOND OF ALL, IT ENSURES SOME MINIMUM DECENCY THAT PREVAILS IN OUR WORKPLACE REGARDING THE RIGHTS OF OUR VALUABLE WORKERS IN OUR SOCIETY. THE BIG PROBLEM WITH INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS IS THAT IT'S ONLY AS GOOD AS THE AWARENESS AND THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WORKERS HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHTS UNDER ANY PARTICULAR ACT. BELIEVE ME, LAWYERS THEMSELVES WHO ARE SPECIALIZED IN THIS AREA HAVE A HARD ENOUGH TIME SOME TIMES TRYING TO READ THE EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT, OR THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, OR THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS. I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT WORKERS HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING -- EITHER UNDERSTANDING THE ACT OR EVEN KNOWING THEY HAVE THESE PARTICULAR RIGHTS, BUT SECONDLY AND EVEN MORE WORRISOME WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM IS THAT NON-UNIONIZED -- WORKERS WHO DON'T HAVE A UNION, TWO-THIRDS OF OUR WORKFORCE, EVEN IF THEY DO KNOW WHAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE WILL RARELY EVER COMPLAIN TO A GOVERNMENT INSPECTION OFFICER OR A GOVERNMENT OFFICE UNLESS THEY'RE NO LONGER WORKING THERE. NINETY-SEVEN PER CENT OF ALL COMPLAINTS GOING INTO EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

ACT WITH RESPECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH VARIOUS VACATION PAY OR MATERNITY LEAVE PAY OR SEVERANCE PAY COME FROM WORKERS WHO ALREADY LEFT WORK. THEY DON'T FEEL CONFIDENT ENOUGH, SECURE ENOUGH, PROTECTED ENOUGH TO COMPLAIN TO THEIR EMPLOYER, THIRD PARTY. THEY STILL EXPECT TO KEEP THEIR JOB OR CONTINUE TO HAVE GOOD RELATIONS AT THEIR PLACE. THEY DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF CONFIDENCE. EACH THOUGH THERE ARE LAWS WHICH SAYS AN EMPLOYER CANNOT RETALIATE AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR FILING A LAWFUL COMPLAINT. THAT DOESN'T GIVE WORKERS VERY MUCH CONFIDENCE THAT THEIR COMPLAINT IS GOING -- NO REPRISAL SYSTEM IS GOING TO WIND UP PROTECTING THEM. THE FIFTH AND FINAL -- SOMETHING THAT CAROL CAN TALK TO -- AND THIS IS AN EMPLOYER REPORTING ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, AND THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS THE BEST EXAMPLE -- THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT FEDERALLY REQUIRES ALL EMPLOYERS WHO ARE REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL SYSTEM TO REPORT ANNUALLY TO THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ON THE PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS THEY HAVE IN THEIR WORKPLACE WHO COME FROM ANY ONE OF THE FOUR AREAS OF DISADVANTAGED WORKERS. WOMEN, WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES, ABORIGINAL PEOPLES, AND VISIBLE MINORITIES AND THESE NUMBERS ARE PUBLISHED ANNUALLY AND THERE IS A DETAILED REVIEW OF EACH WORKPLACE WITH A SO-CALLED EMPLOYMENT EQUITY AUDIT EVERY FIVE YEARS

OF EACH OF THESE WORKPLACES. NO QUOTA IN THE ACT. NO MANDATORY HIRING IN THE ACT. THE EMPHASIS INSTEAD IS ON GENTLY PRODDING THE EMPLOYERS TO RAISE THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND PROMOTION OF THESE EMPLOYEES, FROM THESE FOUR DIFFERENT GROUPS TO THE PERSONNEL THAT THEY REPRESENT IN THE CANADIAN LABOR FORCE. THE ADVANTAGE OF THIS SYSTEM ENDS UP SHAMING EMPLOYERS. THOSE WHOSE NUMBERS FALL BELOW ONE OR MORE OF THESE IF YOU LIKE INFORMAL TARGETS -- AND BELIEVE ME THAT INCLUDES JUST ABOUT EVERY EMPLOYER UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT AND TRIES TO ENCOURAGE CULTURE OF DIVERSITY -- AND IT DOES FOCUS AND FORCE EMPLOYERS TO START THINKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES, BUT THE DISADVANTAGE OF THIS THE PROCESS IS VERY SLOW, AND IF ONE LOOKS AT THE NUMBERS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES IN THE FEDERAL WORKPLACE SINCE THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT WAS FIRST INTRODUCED IN 1986, IT REMAINS SHAME FULLY LOW AND ONLY MARGINAL IMPROVEMENT OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. SO JUST TO CONCLUDE, IF WE LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OTHER PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, THERE IS A POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE LESSON TO BE LEARNED HERE. THE NEGATIVE LESSON IS THAT EVERY SINGLE IMPORTANT TYPE OF PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION WE HAVE HAD IN CANADA OVER THE LAST 80 OR SO YEARS HAS ALWAYS BEGUN WITH A VOICE, WITH A DEMAND FOR PROTECTIVE

LEGISLATION. GOVERNMENTS INVARIABLY STARTED OFF BY OFFERING IN PASSING A BILL, A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT PROCLAIMS IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES THAT HAS NO EFFECTIVE TEETH TO IT. IF YOU LOOK AT HUMAN RIGHTS, THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF FAIR PLAY AND FAIR EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION, STATUTES THAT CLAIM ONTARIO AS BEING DISCRIMINATION FREE BUT HAD NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. THE SAME THING WITH LABOR LAWS. THE SAME THING WITH THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS. BEFORE WE HAD THIS WE HAD THE CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS WHICH WAS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION IN TERMS OF VALUES THAT HAD NO EFFECTIVE LEGAL ENFORCEMENT TO IT, AND THEY HAVE ALL SINCE BEEN PUSHED BY SOCIETIES AND BY THOSE GROUPS MOST DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY PREJUDICE TO PASS BETTER LEGISLATION WITH TEETH. YOU'RE IN THE EARLY PROCESS OF THAT. YOU HAVE AN ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT PASSED THAT PROCLAIMS YOUR RIGHTS, BUT NO MEANS OF ENFORCING THEM, SO THE POSITIVE LESSON IS IN FACT THE SAME THING AS A NEGATIVE LESSON IS THAT YOU'RE THROUGH THAT FIRST CYCLE, YOU RECOGNIZE THE DISADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF HAVING A WEAK ACT, AND NOW IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IF YOU LIKE TO GO OUT AND PUSH TO HAVE MEANINGFUL LEGISLATION THAT HAS A PERSON WITH DISABILITIES IN MIND AND TO FIND OUT THESE EFFECTIVE MODELS FOR ENFORCEMENT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (APPLAUSE).

DAVID LEPOFSKY: WE'RE JUST GETTING TO THE MAIN COURSE NOW. I GUESS THIS IS JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT OR SOMETHING YOU CAN CHEW ON. USING A COMPUTER TERM I SAY THEY ARE "MEGA BYTES". LET'S PROCEED TO RANDAL GRAHAM. WHAT DO YOU DO? WHAT'S YOUR AREA AND WHAT CAN YOU OFFER US?

PROFESSOR GRAHAM: MORE IMPORTANTLY WHAT I DO NOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO REFER TO WHAT I USED TO DO. FROM ONE PERSPECTIVE A LOT OF YOU ARE SORT OF LOOKING AT THE FACE OF WHAT USED TO BE THE ENEMY. LONG BEFORE I WAS A LAW PROFESSOR I WAS A CORPORATE LAWYER AND I PRACTICED VERY BRIEFLY AT A VERY LOW LEVEL AND WAS OFTEN NOT AWARE OF WHAT I WAS TECHNICALLY DOING IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS --FILLING OUT CONTRACTS, FILLING OUT FORMS, SETTING UP BUSINESS PLANS FOR INDIVIDUALS -- UNTIL ONE DAY I FOUND MYSELF UGLY AND REALIZED THAT WHAT CORPORATE LAW DOES IS ENSURE THAT BUSINESSES ARE NOT FOUND LIABLE, OR IF THEY ARE FOUND LIABLE, THEY DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAY OUT TO THOSE PEOPLE THEY HARM. THE GOAL OF CORPORATE LAW IS TO LIMIT THE KIND OF ENFORCEMENT THAT A PERSON CAN EXERCISE AGAINST A CORPORATION, SO WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT TODAY

ARE WHY CORPORATIONS PRESENT SPECIAL CHALLENGES WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AND SOME OF THE CLEVER WAYS THAT WE HAVE COME UP WITH SINCE THEN IN ORDER TO SURMOUNT THOSE PROBLEMS. SPECIFICALLY I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON ASSUMING THAT THE ODA BECOMES ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WHAT HAPPENS IF WHAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH A CORPORATION? CAN THE VARIOUS MODELS IN OTHER CONTEXTS BE APPLIED IN THE REALM OF ENFORCING THE ODA? WHY DO CORPORATIONS PRESENT SPECIAL CHALLENGES? WHY IS IT DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE ANYTHING AGAINST A COMPANY? A COMPANY BEING -- IT'S JUST ANOTHER WORD FOR A CORPORATION. CORPORATE LAW THEORIES SUGGEST THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE ENFORCING THE LAW AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENFORCING THE LAW AGAINST A CORPORATION AND THAT'S BECAUSE CANADIAN LEGISLATION -- AN ACT CALLED THE CANADIAN BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT GIVES CORPORATIONS THE STATUS OF A LEGAL PERSON. SECTION 15 OF THAT ACT SAYS THAT A CORPORATION HAS THE CAPACITY AND THE RIGHTS, POWERS AND PRIVILEGES OF A NATURAL PERSON. WELL, THIS IS ONE OF THE PERVERSE ELEMENTS OF CORPORATE LAW. IN A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS CORPORATIONS ARE RECOGNIZED AS LEGAL PERSONS LONG BEFORE WOMEN ARE RECOGNIZED AS LEGAL PERSONS, AND THIS SHOULD I

THINK COME AS A SURPRISE TO MOST PEOPLE, BUT ONE GOOD THING ABOUT THE RECOGNITION OF CORPORATIONS AS A LEGAL PERSON, A COROLLARY OF THAT PROPOSITION IS CORPORATIONS SHOULD ALSO HAVE LIABILITIES OF A NATURAL PERSON. IF A PERSON CAN BE FOUND OF BREACHING THE ODA -- FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT BECOMES ENFORCEABLE IN PRIVATE CONTEXT, THEN A CORPORATION SHOULD IN THEORY ALSO BE ABLE TO BE FOUND LIABLE OF VIOLATING THE ODA. WELL THE CORPORATION STATUS AS A LEGAL PERSON MEANS THAT THE CORPORATION IS CONSIDERED SEPARATE FROM ALL THE PEOPLE AROUND IT. IT'S SEPARATE FROM ITS INVESTORS THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE KNOWN AS SHAREHOLDERS, ITS EXECUTIVES WHO ARE OFTEN KNOWN AS OFFICERS, AND ITS CONTROLLING BOARD COMPOSED OF ONE OR MORE DIRECTORS. THE CORPORATION IS A PERSON WITH ITS OWN RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AND SEPARATE FROM THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS. THIS IS TAKEN TO EXTREMES IN LAW. ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLES WAS A CASE INVOLVING A COMPANY CALLED LEE'S AIR FARMING WHICH INVOLVED THIS FELLOW WHO FLEW AROUND IN AN AIRCRAFT SPRAYING PESTICIDES ON FARMS AT THE REQUEST OF THE FARMERS. AT THE ROOT OF THIS CASE DURING THE COURSE OF THIS CASE MR. LEE SAID, 'WELL THAT'S NOT MY BEHAVIOR. I WAS JUST DOING WHAT MY EMPLOYER TOLD ME TO DO WHEN I WAS

SPRAYING PESTICIDES OVER THESE VARIOUS FARMS. YOU CAN'T REALLY HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE TO THAT. THAT WAS THE FAULT OF MY EMPLOYER." WELL ARGUING FROM A COMMON SENSE PERSPECTIVE THE OTHER SIDE IN THE CASE SAID, "WELL YOU'RE THE ONLY PERSON HERE. THIS IS CALLED LEE'S AIR FARMING AND YOU'RE MR. LEE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS. YOU CAN'T REALLY SAY YOU WERE DOING YOUR EMPLOYER'S BIDDING.", AND HIS LAWYER SAID, "HOLD ON A SECOND. TECHNICALLY MR. LEE INCORPORATED A COMPANY CALLED LEE'S AIR FARMING; INSTRUCTED THAT COMPANY TO HIRE A CROP DUSTER. THAT COMPANY THEN HIRED MR. LEE AS THE CROP DUSTER AND THE COMPANY WAS TELLING MR. LEE WHAT TO DO." WELL CLEARLY IT WAS MR. LEE WHO HAD TOLD THE COMPANY WHAT TO DO AND THE COMPANY HAD TOLD MR. LEE WHAT TO DO. MR. LEE WON. (LAUGHTER) SO MR. LEE WAS FOUND TO BE A SEPARATE PERSON FROM THE COMPANY THAT REALLY INVOLVED NO PERSON OTHER THAN HIM. THIS RAISES SOME DIFFICULTIES. ANYONE FOR EXAMPLE -- BY THE WAY, THIS TO ME A FEW YEARS AGO SEEMED LIKE A GREAT IDEA. (LAUGHTER) ANYONE ENCOUNTERING MR. LEE WOULD HAVE ASSUMED THAT HE WAS THE BUSINESS. FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY THAT LIABILITY UNDER THE ODA COULD BE IMPOSED ON A BUSINESS, THEY WOULD ASSUME THAT THAT LIABILITY BELONGED TO MR. LEE. WELL THEY WOULD

BE WRONG, AND IF THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE THIS AGAINST MR. LEE THEY WOULD SOON HIT A ROADBLOCK. YOU CANNOT, IN FACT, ENFORCE THESE THINGS AGAINST SHAREHOLDERS, AGAINST DIRECTORS. THESE LIABILITIES, THESE OBLIGATIONS BELONG SOLELY TO THE BUSINESS AND THE BUSINESS IS A CORPORATION SO TARGET SELECTION BECOMES VERY, VERY IMPORTANT WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH ENFORCING THINGS IN THE CORPORATE CONTEXT. AGAINST WHOM DO I WANT TO ENFORCE THIS OBLIGATION? A CORPORATION OR SOME INDIVIDUAL TO WHOM THE OBLIGATION MIGHT BELONG? WELL THIS RAISES THE SECOND ISSUE OF CORPORATIONS. THE FIRST ISSUE BEING SEPARATION OF IDENTITY. THE SECOND ONE IS THE NOTION OF LIMITED LIABILITY AND THE CBCA -- THAT LEGISLATION I MENTIONED EARLIER -- HAS A SECTION NUMBER 45 STATING THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS OF A CORPORATION -- THAT IS PERSONS LIKE MR. LEE -- ARE NOT LIABLE FOR ANY LIABILITY, ACT OR DEFAULT OF THE CORPORATION. WELL THIS MEANS THAT THE CORPORATION'S DEBTS ARE ITS OWN AND SHAREHOLDERS CANNOT BE CALLED UPON TO PAY FOR THE COMPANY'S DEBTS OR TO ANSWER FOR ANYTHING WRONG THAT THE COMPANY DOES. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE COMPLETELY INVULNERABLE. THEY DO HAVE SHARES WITHIN THE CORPORATION. SHAREHOLDERS ARE INVESTORS. THEY PUT MONEY

INTO THE COMPANY AND THAT MONEY BECOMES VULNERABLE. MONEY THAT IS USED TO PAY FOR SHARES IN THE CORPORATION BELONGS TO THE COMPANY, AND IF THE CORPORATION IS REQUIRED TO PAY FOR SIGNIFICANT LIABILITIES SUCH AS FINES FOR VIOLATING A STATUTE OR JUDGMENT DEBTS THAT ARE DECIDED IN FAVOR OF SOMEONE WHO HAS MADE A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CORPORATION, COULD BE LOST - THE INVESTMENT. THIS SEEMS LIKE A GOOD THING. IF MR. LEE, FOR EXAMPLE, COULD LOSE HIS INVESTMENT IN LEE'S AIR FARMING, HE MIGHT BE DETERRED BY USING THAT CORPORATION. IT IS NOT AN ESPECIALLY POWERFUL DETERRENT PARTICULARLY WHEN DEALING WITH SMALL CORPORATIONS. CANADIAN LAW DOES NOT HAVE A CAPITALIZATION REQUIREMENT. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU LEAVE A SPECIFIED SUM OF MONEY WITHIN A CORPORATION SO MR. LEE COULD HAVE A CORPORATION THAT HAD ASSETS TOTALLY OF MAYBE $1.00 AND ANYONE WHO SUED THE CORPORATION, THE MOST THEY COULD GET OUT OF THE CORPORATION WOULD BE $1.00. YOU CAN'T GET BLOOD FROM A STONE. YOU CAN'T GET MONEY FROM A CORPORATION THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY. MR. LEE MIGHT OWN A LOT. SEVERAL BIG HOUSES. CARS. ALL OF THAT WOULD BE PROTECTED BECAUSE HE IS PROTECTED BY THE VEIL OF THE CORPORATION. CORPORATION'S DEBTS ARE ITS OWN. IF THE CORPORATION HAS NO MONEY, THEREFORE, YOU'RE LOST AT SEA IF YOU HAVE ANY

SORT OF ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ENFORCE AGAINST THE CORPORATION. THIS LEADS TO THE TWO IMPORTANT ISSUES OF CORPORATE LAW AND ENFORCEMENT. FIRST THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMPANY ARE THOSE OF THE COMPANY ALONE AND COMPANIES CAN EASILY ESCAPE LIABILITY AND ENFORCEMENT BY KEEPING NO MONEY WITHIN THEMSELVES. YOU CAN'T PUT A CORPORATION IN JAIL. THE ONLY SORT OF ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS YOU CAN HAVE AGAINST A CORPORATION ARE FINANCIAL IN NATURE AND THEY'RE VERY EASY FOR COMPANIES TO AVOID. WELL NOW HOW DO YOU AVOID LIMITED LIABILITY? THIS IS DIFFICULT. IF WE'RE DEALING WITH THE MENU AND FOOD METAPHOR HERE, THIS IS THE PART WHERE YOU MAY GET SOME INDIGESTION. IT'S VERY TRICKY TO AVOID THIS PROBLEM OF LIABILITY. VISIT A CORPORATION'S LIABILITIES OR DUTIES UPON SOME OTHER PERSON LIKE A SHAREHOLDER. THERE ARE FEW RARELY SUCCESSFUL MEANS OF DOING SO AND THESE INCLUDE NO. 1 LIFTS THE CORPORATE VEIL WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT IN A MINUTE. 2. SOMETHING CALLED A TORT. THAT JUST MEANS -- IT'S NOT A DESSERT -- A PRIVATE SUIT BY ONE PERSON AGAINST ANOTHER SO YOU CAN SUE SOMEONE FOR INDUCEMENT INDUCING THE CORPORATION TO BREACH A LAW. 3. SOMETHING KNOWN AS A DERIVATIVE ACTION THAT I'LL EXPLAIN IN A MINUTE. 4TH. THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR US. STATUTORY LIABILITY REGIMES AND FIFTH, THE

OPPRESSION REMEDY. THE FIRST ITEM I MENTIONED WAS "LIFTING" THE CORPORATE VEIL. WHEN THIS VEIL IS LIFTED, THE COURTS IGNORE THAT WHOLE LEGAL DOCTRINE OF LEGAL LIABILITY I DESCRIBED AND THEY OPPOSE LIABILITY FOR THE CORPORATION'S ACTIONS DIRECTLY UPON SOMEONE ELSE -- USUALLY THE SHAREHOLDERS OR DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION -- AND THE COURTS DO THIS WHEN THEY DO IT -- I THINK THERE ARE EIGHT CASES IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF CANADA ON THIS HAVING HAPPENED. WHEN COURTS DO THIS, THEY TEND TO DO IT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CORPORATION WAS A SHAM -- IT'S FICTITIOUS -- OTHER THAN TO SHIELD THE CORPORATE INVESTORS QUITE RIGHTLY AND I MEAN "RIGHTLY" IN THE LEGAL SENSE LAWYERS POINTED OUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. ALL CORPORATIONS ARE SHAMS THAT ARE THERE JUST TO DEFEND PEOPLE FROM LIABILITY, AND THEY'RE RIGHT, SO JUDGES HAVE SAID, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER TO FIND IN FAVOR OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND AGAINST A CORPORATION IN THESE CASES, IN ORDER TO "LIFT" THE CORPORATE VEIL, WE HAVE TO REALLY IGNORE THE WHOLE POINT OF CORPORATE LAW ALTOGETHER AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COURTS HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO DO. "LIFTING" THE CORPORATE VEIL ALMOST NEVER WORKS. AND THE NEXT FORM IS TORT OF INDUCEMENT. CONSIDER THE CASE OF A SIMPLE CONTRACT

BETWEEN YOU AND ANOTHER PERSON. IF YOU BREACH THAT CONTRACT, IT'S YOUR FAULT. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY DAMAGES; PAY SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY TO THE PERSON WHOSE CONTRACT YOU BREACHED. WELL WHAT HAPPENS IF SOME THIRD PARTY CAME IN AND FORCED YOU TO BREACH THAT CONTRACT? THEY HAVE INDUCED YOU TO BREACH THE CONTRACT. WELL THE LAW ALLOWS YOU TO GO AFTER THAT THIRD PARTY FOR THIS TORT, THIS PRIVATE ACTION OF INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT. A LOT OF CLEVER ANTI-CORPORATE LAWYERS CAME OUT AND SAID, "CAN'T YOU SAY IN MR. LEE'S EXAMPLE, FOR INSTANCE, THAT LEE -- WHEN WE SET UP THAT CORPORATION AND DIRECTED HIMSELF TO BE AN EMPLOYEE, HE INDUCED THAT CORPORATION TO INDUCE HIMSELF AS (LAUGHTER) -- TO VIOLATE CERTAIN LEGAL REQUIREMENTS?" THIS GAVE THE JUDGES A HEADACHE. (LAUGHTER) SO IT HASN'T WORKED EITHER. IT'S TOO CONVOLUTED. IT'S NOT A SUCCESSFUL REGIME AND I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND IT'S AN OPTION TO ANY SORT OF ODA MECHANISM. WELL HAPPILY WE'RE NOW GETTING TWO SLIGHTLY MORE EFFECTIVE FORMS OF LIABILITY REGIME. THE FIRST IS KNOWN AS THE DERIVATIVE ACTION. UNDER THE BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT THE DIRECTORS OF A CORPORATION ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO ACT SOLELY IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CORPORATION. THAT MEANS THE DECISION-MAKERS FOR THE COMPANY. AND SINCE THE

COMPANY CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS FOR ITSELF -- CORPORATIONS HAVE NO BRAINS -- SINCE A CORPORATION HAS NO BRAIN OF ITS OWN, IT RELIES ON ITS DIRECTORS AND THEY ACT AS A PROXY FOR THE CORPORATION. THEY HAVE TO ACT IN ITS BEST INTERESTS. IN SOME INSTANCES THIRD PARTIES OUT THERE IN THE WORLD CAN BRING AN ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION. IT'S DERIVED FROM THE RIGHTS OF THE CORPORATION ARGUING THAT THE DIRECTORS HAVE NOT BEEN ACTING IN THE CORPORATION'S BEST INTERESTS. LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, COMPLIANCE WITH THE ODA IS IN THE COMPANY'S BEST INTEREST FOR SOME REASON PERHAPS BECAUSE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ODA WOULD COST YOU TO LOSE BUSINESS AS WE HAVE BEEN HEARING ABOUT TODAY. IF THAT'S THE CASE A PERSON COULD ARGUE YOU HAVEN'T COMPLIED WITH THE ODA. THE COMPANY HASN'T COMPLIED WITH THE ODA. YOU, THE DIRECTOR, HAD THE POWER TO GET THE COMPANY TO COMPLY WITH THE ODA THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE COMPANY'S BEST INTEREST. WELL THAT SOUNDS GREAT IN THEORY. IT SOUNDS THAT THIS IS A WAY THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SAY USING THE CORPORATION'S RIGHTS TO HAVE DIRECTORS WHO ACT IN ITS BEST INTERESTS, THIS WOULD BE A WAY FOR US TO SAY YOU HAVEN'T DONE THAT AND THEREFORE YOU MUST COMPLY WITH THE ODA. THE PROBLEM WITH THE DERIVATIVE ACTIONS

IS THEY'RE VERY INDIRECT. ONCE YOU SUE SUCCESSFULLY FOR BREACH OF THE DIRECTOR'S DUTY TO ACT IN THE CORPORATION'S BEST INTERESTS, ANY DAMAGES THAT HAVE TO BE PAID BY THE DIRECTOR; ANY LAWSUIT THAT IS SUCCESSFUL AGAINST THAT DIRECTOR IS PAYABLE ONLY TO THE CORPORATION ITSELF. IT'S THE CORPORATION WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, NOT YOU THE CONSUMER, SO THE CORPORATION IS THE ONE WHO WINS IN THAT LAWSUIT. THE DIRECTOR LOSE AND HAS TO BE PAID MONEY TO THE CORPORATION. OF COURSE MOST DIRECTORS HAVE INSURANCE OR INDEMNITY FROM THE INSURANCE. THE CORPORATION WILL PAY FOR THAT. THE CORPORATION HAS TO PAY ITSELF ESSENTIALLY SOME AMOUNT OF LIABILITY AS A RESULT OF DERIVATIVE ACTION. AGAIN, NOT ESPECIALLY HELPFUL IN OUR CONTEXT BUT WE DO COME TO AN AREA THAT CAN BE HELPFUL AND THIS IS DIRECT STATUTORY LIABILITY AND THIS IS BEST EXPLAINED BY AN EXAMPLE. CORPORATIONS IN CANADA OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO ABILITY TO CARRY OUT ACTIONS ON THEIR OWN. THEY NEED PEOPLE WORKING FOR THEM SO THEY TYPICALLY HAVE EMPLOYEES. EVEN MR. LEE AIR FARMING HAD MR. LEE. YOU HAVE TO PAY EMPLOYEES WAGES. WHAT HAPPENS IF A CORPORATION DOESN'T PAY ITS EMPLOYEES WAGES? WELL UNDER TYPICAL CORPORATE LAW THEORY, IF IT REFUSED TO PAY ITS WAGES TO ITS EMPLOYEES THE EMPLOYEES WOULD SUE THE CORPORATION. THE CORPORATION MIGHT SAY, "I HAVE NO MONEY. GO AWAY! YOU

CAN'T GET BLOOD FROM A STONE.", AND THEN THEY'RE SUNK. THEY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING. WELL SECTION 119 OF THE BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT THAT I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TODAY, IT NOW IMPOSES LIABILITY FOR EMPLOYEES' WAGES DIRECTLY UPON THE DIRECTORS OF A CORPORATION. IT COMES OUT OF YOUR POCKET SO IF MR. LEE HAD OTHER EMPLOYEES, FOR EXAMPLE, AND DIDN'T PAY THEM -- "MY CORPORATION ONLY HAS A $1.00. GO AHEAD AND SUE." -- THE LAW THEN UNDER SECTION 19 SAYS "FINE. YOUR EMPLOYERS GET YOUR BOAT. THEY GET YOUR CAR. THEY GET YOUR HOUSE." EFFECTIVELY THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE MONEY IN THE POCKETS OF THE DIRECTORS. NOT JUST TO THE MONEY IN THE POCKET OF THE CORPORATION. THE DIRECTORS BECOME LIABLE BY BREACHES OF THE COMPANY AND THIS COULD BE INCORPORATED INTO AN EFFECTIVE ODA. IF A COMPANY IS FOUND TO HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ODA, WHAT THE STATUTE MIGHT DO, FOR EXAMPLE, VISIT LIABILITY UPON THE DIRECTORS. IF THE DIRECTORS OWE US MONEY THE DIRECTORS CAN GO TO JAIL. OTHER FORMS OF STATUTORY LIABILITY WOULD BE THINGS LIKE SEIZE TRADE ORDERS; RESTRICTIONS ON THE BUSINESS OF A COMPANY. IF YOUR COMPANY DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE ODA, IT CAN NO LONGER CARRY ON BUSINESS. IT CAN'T TRANSACT. IT CAN'T EARN ANY OF THE MONEY. IT'S THE

REASON WHY YOU OPENED THE BUSINESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE MOST PROMISING LIABILITY REGIME FROM CORPORATE LAW IS DIRECT STATUTE LIABILITY FOLLOWING THE MODEL OF EMPLOYEE WAGES. IN CONCLUSION THERE IS NOT A LOT OF GOOD THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THE REGIMES OFFERED BY CORPORATE LAW. A CLEVER CORPORATE LAWYER CAN BE VERY EFFECTIVE IN SHIELDING INDIVIDUALS FROM LIABILITIES THROUGH THE CREATION OF CORPORATIONS. AVOIDING THE SPECTER OF "LIMITED LIABILITY" IS QUITE INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. ONLY THROUGH THE RETENTION OF EQUALLY CREATIVE CORPORATE COUNSEL OR THROUGH DIRECT STATUTORY LIABILITY IMPOSED ON SHAREHOLDERS OR DIRECTORS CAN INDIVIDUALS SEEKING JUSTICE OR ENFORCEMENT HOPE TO PREVAIL, AND IF ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO IMPOSE THESE SORTS OF MECHANISMS IN THE CORPORATE CONTEXT WHEN DEALING WITH THE ODA, I'LL PROVIDE MY E-MAIL ADDRESS AND CONTACT DETAILS WITH THE ORGANIZERS OF THIS EVENT, AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (APPLAUSE). BY THE WAY, I WISHED YOU TAUGHT ME CORPORATE LAW WHEN I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL. WE HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER TO SHARE SOME IDEAS.

CAROL, TELL US WHAT YOUR BACKGROUND IS AND WHAT AREA YOU SPECIALIZE IN AND WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE.

DR. CAROL AGOCS: I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE HAVE ARRIVED AT THE COURSE OF THIS MEAL WHERE WE NEED AN ALKA SELTZER WITH THE EXPERIENCE IN CANADA WITH EMPLOYMENT EQUITY OVER THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS SO I HAVE SOME BOTH PERHAPS SOME PROMISING NOTIONS THAT I HAVE LEARNED ABOUT FROM THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY LEGISLATION AND POLICY THAT WE HAVE IN CANADA AND, ALSO, CERTAINLY SOME CAUTIONARY TALES FROM OUR EXPERIENCE WITH THAT. THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT IN SOME WAYS IS A FAIRLY DECENT PIECE OF LEGISLATION AND IT'S BEEN CONSIDERED A MODEL BY OTHER COUNTRIES INTERESTED IN EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE BUT IT CERTAINLY HAS SOME LIMITATIONS AND I GUESS I WANT TO SUGGEST TO YOU TODAY THAT IN MY VIEW HAVING A GOOD PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS DEFINITELY A WONDERFUL THING AND IT'S A GOOD START BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH. IT'S A NECESSARY CONDITION BUT NOT A SUFFICIENT CONDITION TO CREATING CHANGE IN ORGANIZATIONS AND IN SOCIETY. SO I THINK EQUALITY SEEKERS NEED TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE SYSTEM, THE WHOLE POLICY FRAMEWORK IN THINKING THROUGH WHAT CAN BE GAINED FROM HAVING A GOOD PIECE OF LEGISLATION. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE LEGISLATION

ITSELF BUT ALSO AT THE INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORTS FOR MAKING IT WORK FOR THINGS LIKE MAKING SURE THAT EMPLOYERS KNOW WHAT THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE, MAKING SURE THAT THE PUBLIC IS AWARE. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE RESOURCES DEDICATED TO MAKING THE POLICY EFFECTIVE WHICH MY GOAL AND OTHER SPEAKERS HERE HAVE TALKED ABOUT. IF WE HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM AND IT HASN'T BEEN GIVEN THE RESOURCES THAT IT NEEDS TO WORK WITH, THEN THE SYSTEM IS NOT GOING TO WORK AS IT SHOULD. THE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT ARRANGEMENTS AND HOW THEY'RE ACTUALLY APPLIED ARE VERY IMPORTANT. WHETHER OR NOT THE POLITICAL WILL EXISTS TO PUT THE PRESSURE ON TO MAKE SURE THAT THE GOOD LEGISLATION IS ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. AND FINALLY THE SANCTIONS, IF ANY, THAT ARE APPLIED IN CASES WHERE EMPLOYERS AND OTHERS RESIST THEIR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. IF THERE AREN'T MEANINGFUL SANCTIONS, THEN I THINK THE POTENTIAL OF EVEN GOOD LEGISLATION IS GOING TO FALL SHORT. SO I GUESS I WANT TO SUGGEST THAT EFFECTIVE POLICY FRAMEWORKS WOULD ADDRESS ALL OF THESE COMPONENTS OF THE POLICY SYSTEM SO THAT THEY WORK TOGETHER TO GET RESULTS. AND I THINK WE HAVE SOME EXAMPLES IN CANADA PROBABLY WHERE WE HAVE SUCH POLICY

SYSTEMS. USUALLY THE GOVERNMENT IS VERY GOOD AT COLLECTING TAXES FROM CITIZENS, RIGHT, SO THERE'S AN EXAMPLE PERHAPS OF HOW ELEMENTS OF THE WHOLE POLICY SYSTEM WORK TOGETHER TO ENSURE SUCCESS. EMPLOYMENT EQUITY LEGISLATION HAS EXISTED IN THE FEDERAL JURISDICTION SINCE 1987, AND I REMEMBER BACK BEFORE '87 INTO THE EARLY 80S, HOW MUCH THOSE OF US WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE ANTICIPATED THIS LEGISLATION AND HOW EXCITED WE WERE ABOUT ITS POTENTIAL AND HOW HARD MANY, MANY PEOPLE WORKED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT CONTAINED ALL OF THE ELEMENTS THAT WERE CONSIDERED IMPORTANT TO SUCCESS. SO WE ENDED UP WITH LEGISLATION THAT AS MICHAEL LYNCK SAID COVERS FOUR DESIGNATED GROUP INCLUDING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, IT APPLIES TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, FEDERAL CROWN CORPORATIONS AND COMPANIES IN THE FEDERAL JURISDICTION. AND IT ALSO COVERS FEDERAL CONTRACTORS. THAT IS TO SAY PRIVATE SECTOR COMPANIES THAT SELL GOODS AND SERVICES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SO THAT'S AN INTERESTING ANGLE THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF AN ODA. THERE ARE A FEW FEATURES OF INTEREST IN THIS EMPLOYMENT EQUITY LEGISLATION. FIRST OF ALL IT'S DESIGNED AS A REMEDY FOR SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION. THAT

IS TO SAY FOR DISCRIMINATION THAT CREATES DISADVANTAGE FOR DESIGNATED GROUP MEMBERS NOT BY INTENT BY THE ORDINARY EVERY DAY OPERATION OF AN ORGANIZATION, OF AN EMPLOYER, OF A WORKPLACE. THAT THE EVERY DAY ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THAT PUTS SYSTEMIC BARRIERS IN THE WAY OF PEOPLE. THIS IS WHAT THE LEGISLATION IS REALLY DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH. IT IS MANDATORY, NOT VOLUNTARY, FOR THE EMPLOYERS THAT ARE COVERED. IT IS PROACTIVE AND NOT COMPLAINT BASED LIKE THE HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION, THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODES ARE. IT PLACES AN ONUS ON THE EMPLOYER TO IMPROVE THE REPRESENTATION AND PARTICIPATION OF DESIGNATED GROUPS BY REQUIRING THAT THE EMPLOYER DO A NUMBER OF THINGS AND THERE'S A LIST OF THINGS THAT THE EMPLOYER IS SUPPOSE TO DO. THE EMPLOYER IS SUPPOSE TO DEMONSTRATE THE TOP MANAGEMENT IS COMMITTED TO EMPLOYMENT EQUITY. IS SUPPOSE TO IDENTIFY AND REMOVE JOB BARRIERS BY MEANS OF SOMETHING CALLED AN EMPLOYMENT SYSTEMS REVIEW. THAT IS THE EMPLOYER IS SUPPOSE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE WAY THAT DECISIONS ARE MADE ABOUT PEOPLE'S ACCESS TO JOBS AND PROGRESSION THROUGH THEIR CAREERS. MAKE SURE THERE IS NO SYSTEMIC BARRIERS. THE EMPLOYER IS SUPPOSE TO SET GOALS OF TIMETABLES FOR HIRING AND FOR PROMOTION. THE EMPLOYER IS SUPPOSE TO PREPARE A WORK PLAN FOR

IMPLEMENTING EMPLOYMENT EQUITY THAT INCLUDES SPECIAL MEASURES FOR ATTAINING THE GOALS AS WELL AS REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION MEASURES FOR DISABILITY AND FOR THE NEEDS OF THE OTHER THREE DESIGNATED GROUPS. THE EMPLOYER IS SUPPOSE TO COLLECT AND MAINTAIN DATA ON THE WORKFORCE ON THE PRESENCE AND REPRESENTATION OF THE FOUR DESIGNATED GROUPS WITHIN THE WORKFORCE AND IS SUPPOSE TO COMPARE THAT DATA WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF THOSE GROUPS WITHIN RELEVANT LABOR MARKETS. THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ARE ALSO SUPPOSE TO BE MONITORED AND REVISED AS THINGS CHANGE. THE CORPORATION IS SUPPOSE TO APPOINT A PERSON TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTING EMPLOYMENT EQUITY WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION. THE COMPANY IS SUPPOSE TO MAKE SURE THAT EMPLOYEES ARE INFORMED ABOUT EMPLOYMENT EQUITY AND THAT BARGAINING AGENTS PARTICIPATE THROUGH CONSULTATION. THE EMPLOYER MUST AGREE TO COMPLIANCE AUDITS BY THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND AS MICHAEL SAID THE EMPLOYER MUST REPORT ANNUALLY TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THESE REPORTS ON THE WORKFORCE DATA THAT THE EMPLOYER GIVES TO THE GOVERNMENT ARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. NOW THE THEORY BEHIND EMPLOYMENT EQUITY IS THAT IT'S A PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS. THAT IT ADDRESSES SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION BY CREATING AWARENESS OF THE ISSUES, BY CREATING ACCOUNTABILITIES FOR RESULTS,

AND BY CRITICALLY ASSESSING HOW DECISIONS ABOUT PEOPLE'S ACCESS TO JOBS AND MOVEMENT THROUGH THE CORPORATION TAKE PLACE AND REMOVING JOB BARRIERS THAT CREATE UNFAIRNESS AND REPLACING THEM WITH FAIR PRACTICES. THIS IS THE THEORY, RIGHT? IDEALLY IF IMPLEMENTED EMPLOYMENT EQUITY WOULD BECOME PART OF THE WHOLE RANGE OF HUMAN RESOURCES PRACTICES WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION. DECISION-MAKERS WOULD UNDERSTAND THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES IN SUCH AREAS AS ENSURING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. EVERYONE WOULD UNDERSTAND THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING THAT THE WORKPLACE IS FREE OF HARASSMENT. EQUALITY SEEKING GROUPS WOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE DATA THAT IS PUBLICLY REPORTED WHETHER IT'S GOOD OR POOR AND PUT PRESSURE ON THE EMPLOYER TO IMPROVE. BARGAINING AGENTS AND DESIGNATED SPOKESPEOPLE WITHIN THE WORKPLACE PERHAPS THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN EMPLOYMENT EQUITY COMMITTEES WOULD BE INVOLVED IN AN ONGOING PROCESS IDENTIFYING ISSUES, ASSISTING, IMPLEMENT SOLUTIONS. THE GOVERNMENT WOULD EDUCATE EMPLOYERS AS TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES AND WOULD PROVIDE EXPERTISE AND ADVICE TO ASSIST EMPLOYERS. THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AUDITS WOULD FIND AND MAKE EXAMPLES OF EMPLOYERS WHO DO NOT MAKE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS. WOULD SERVE THEM WITH DIRECTIVES AND IF RESISTANCE CONTINUES

WOULD BRING THEM BEFORE AN EMPLOYMENT EQUITY TRIBUNAL. NOW THIS IS THE PYRAMID APPROACH THAT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT. SOUNDS GOOD, EH? THIS IS THE WAY THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT IS SUPPOSE TO WORK. THIS IS THE FRAMEWORK THAT HAS BEEN SET OUT IN THE LEGISLATION AND MY VIEW IS THAT THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT THAT WE HAD FOR A FEW SHORT MONTHS IN ONTARIO BEFORE IT WAS REVEALED BY THE HARRIS GOVERNMENT HAD IN IT A NUMBER OF THESE FEATURES IN A WAY THAT WAS -- WERE VERY WELL FORMULATED SO THAT THE ONTARIO EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT REALLY IS AN INTERESTING MODEL TO LOOK AT. NOW MANY OF THESE FEATURES I THINK WERE MENTIONED IN DAVID'S THOUGHTFUL PAPER ABOUT PUTTING TEETH INTO THE ODA. I WOULD ONLY WISH THAT THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT HAD THE TEETH THAT IT NEEDS TO BE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE IN MY VIEW THERE IS A BIG GAP BETWEEN THE POTENTIAL OF THIS LEGISLATION AND WHAT WE ACTUALLY SEE IN PRACTICE. NOW IN FACT IF WE LOOK AT RESEARCH ON EMPLOYMENT EQUITY IN CANADA AND ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN THE U.S. AND SIMILAR MEASURES IN OTHER COUNTRIES SUCH AS NORTHERN IRELAND AND AUSTRALIA, WHAT WE CAN SEE IN THIS RESEARCH IS THAT THIS KIND OF LEGISLATION, THIS KIND OF POLICY CAN GET RESULTS IF IT IS IMPLEMENTED. WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THE REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN AND RACIALIZED

MINORITIES IMPROVES AND PAY DISADVANTAGE DECREASES IN WORKPLACES WHERE WE HAVE THESE CHARACTERISTICS AND I'LL LIST THEM. FIRST OF ALL THAT THERE IS MANDATORY LEGISLATION. THIS IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. SECONDLY THAT SOMEONE IS IN CHARGE OF IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY AND THAT THERE ARE POLICIES AND PLANS WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION TO ENSURE THAT JOB BARRIERS ARE IDENTIFIED AND THAT SPECIAL MEASURES AND ACCOMMODATIONS ARE UNDERTAKEN. WHERE THE ORGANIZATION IS REQUIRED TO SET GOALS AND TIMETABLES FOR IMPROVING REPRESENTATION AND WHERE MANAGERS ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR RESULTS OR FOR LACK OF RESULTS ON THEIR WATCH. AND FINALLY AND PROBABLY MOST CRUCIALLY WHERE THERE IS A SERIOUS AUDITING PROCESS BY GOVERNMENT AND WHERE MEANINGFUL SANCTIONS ARE IMPOSED FOR A FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND WHERE ALL EMPLOYERS STAND A REASONABLE CHANCE OF BEING AUDITED AND WE KNOW WHEN THOSE CHARACTERISTICS EXIST IN A POLICY FRAMEWORK, THE LEGISLATION HAS SHOWN TO BE EFFECTIVE. IT CAN GET RESULTS. SO WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION? WHAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT IS THAT RESULTS HAVE BEEN

DISAPPOINTING. WE HAVE LEGISLATION THAT HAS MANY GOOD FEATURES BUT, IN FACT, WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAYS TO GO IN TERMS OF GETTING TO EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCESS FOR WOMEN AND RACIALIZED MINORITIES IN EMPLOYMENT BUT THESE GROUPS ARE STILL UNDER REPRESENTED IN UPPER LEVEL MANAGEMENT POSITIONS, IN HIGHER SALARY BRACKETS AND THEY'RE STILL CONCENTRATED IN CERTAIN TYPES OF WORK. FOR EXAMPLE CLERICAL JOBS AND MISSING FROM OTHER KINDS OF WORK. THERE IS STILL A LARGE PAY GAP FOR WOMEN AND FOR RACIAL MINORITIES AND CERTAINLY FOR ABORIGINAL PEOPLE AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AS COMPARED WITH WHITE ABLE-BODIED MEN AND THEY'RE REALLY UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT HAS BEEN NO DEMONSTRATED IMPROVEMENT IN REPRESENTATION FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, NOR FOR ABORIGINAL PEOPLE. AND THE TURNOVER FOR THESE GROUPS REMAINS VERY HIGH SO THERE'S BEEN VERY LITTLE SUCCESS THEN, PARTICULARLY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND FOR ABORIGINAL PEOPLE UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT. SO WHY THE GAP BETWEEN THE PROMISE OF A LEGISLATION AND THE ACTUAL RESULTS THAT WE SEE? IN MY VIEW ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES IS THAT THIS GOOD LEGISLATION THAT WE OSTENSIBLY HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED. EMPLOYERS ARE GETTING AWAY WITHOUT IMPLEMENTING THE LEGISLATION. AND CAN'T REALLY SAY THAT

THE ACT IS AT FAULT IN SOME WAYS BECAUSE IT CONTAINS MANY, MANY EXCELLENT FEATURES, BUT IT SIMPLY IS NOT BEING IMPLEMENTED AND THEREFORE IT CAN'T GET RESULTS. REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY ARE NOT CLEARLY STATED ENOUGH. THERE ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY EFFECTIVE ARRANGEMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT EMPLOYERS COMPLY WITH EMPLOYMENT EQUITY REQUIREMENTS. ARRANGEMENTS FOR HOLDING EMPLOYERS ACCOUNTABLE NEED TO BE STRENGTHENED SO WE'RE TALKING TEETH HERE. HUMAN RESOURCES CANADA AND THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING AND EDUCATING EMPLOYERS AND MAKING SURE THAT EMPLOYERS LIVE UP TO THEIR OBLIGATIONS HAVE NOT HAD THE RESOURCES IN THE LEGISLATIVE TOOLS THAT THEY NEED TO MAKE THE ACT AS EFFECTIVE AS IT COULD BE. ANOTHER PROBLEM HAS OFTEN BEEN MENTIONED HERE TODAY AND THAT IS THERE IS WIDESPREAD MISUNDERSTANDING AND MISINFORMATION AMONG EMPLOYERS AND AMONG THE GENERAL PUBLIC REGARDING THE PURPOSES AND REQUIREMENTS OF EMPLOYMENT EQUITY SO THERE IS A PUBLIC EDUCATION JOB HERE TO BE DONE WHICH I THINK IS PART OF THE BACKGROUND FOR THE LACK OF POLITICAL WILL THAT WE SEE AROUND THIS ISSUE. THIRDLY, CERTAINLY MUCH MORE SPECIFIC WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ENSURE THAT THE ACT APPLIES IN

AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO THE ISSUES OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND ABORIGINAL PEOPLE IN THE WORKPLACE AND SO I THINK BASICALLY THAT THE PROBLEM WITH THE GAP BETWEEN THE POTENTIAL OF THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY LEGISLATION AND THE RESULTS THAT HAVE BEEN DELIVERED UNDER THE LEGISLATION COMES DOWN TO A LACK OF TEETH. EMPLOYMENT EQUITY NEEDS SOME SERIOUS DENTAL WORK (LAUGHTER) AND I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE MESSAGES THAT HAS BEEN REITERATED THROUGHOUT THE AFTERNOON, AND I HOPE THAT A NEW ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND POLICY FRAMEWORK WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WHAT THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY EXPERIENCE HAS TO OFFER AS A MODEL.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (APPLAUSE). IN ABOUT A MINUTE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK SO THE CAPTIONER DOESN'T COLLAPSE (LAUGHTER) BUT FIRST, BY THE WAY, AS FOR DENTAL WORK, ODA USED TO STAND FOR ONTARIO DENTAL ASSOCIATION. (LAUGHTER) THAT'S THE WHOLE TOOTH! I WANT TO BE SERIOUS FOR JUST A MOMENT. THERE IS SOMETHING THAT WON'T REQUIRE THE CAPTIONER'S EFFORT BUT WHICH WE SHOULD DO. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO TAKE A MOMENT -- FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE. TODAY IS SEPTEMBER 11TH. IT IS THE THIRD ANNIVERSARY OF THE TERRORIST

ATTACKS. RATHER THAN STANDING TO PROMOTE SILENCE, THAT WE SIMPLY SIT FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE TO REFLECT ON THE EVENTS OF THAT DAY AFTER WHICH I'LL CALL FOR A 15 MINUTE BREAK. LET'S RESUME IN 15 MINUTES.

-- BREAK AT 3:36 P.M.

-- RESUMED AT 3:52 P.M.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: ALL RIGHT. LET US BEGIN. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I AM JUST GOING TO SPEND A COUPLE OF MINUTES -- I AM GOING TO MAKE A FEW QUICK POINTS AND THEN I'LL PUT A QUESTION TO MY PANELIST THAT I HAVE WARNED THEM ABOUT THAT ARISES FROM SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE ALL TALKED ABOUT TODAY IN VARYING WAYS, AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO KASH FOR THE LAST HALF HOUR TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS OUT. THE TWO BRIEF POINTS I WANTED TO MAKE ARE THESE: FIRST, THIS IS NOT AN EASY AND FRANKLY NOT A SEXY AREA, BUT OUR FOUR PANELISTS HAVE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB GIVING US NEW IDEAS TO THINK ABOUT BUT ALSO EXPLAINING THEM IN VERY CLEAR TERMS FOR PEOPLE WHO AREN'T CORPORATE LAWYERS. (LAUGHTER) AND THAT'S NOT EASY TO DO. NOT MANY LAWYERS ARE GOOD AT DOING THAT BUT WE HAVE GOT FOUR PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE AN EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT JOB. (APPLAUSE).

IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT MORE IN THIS AREA, WE AT THE ODA COMMITTEE CONSULTED SOME OTHER LAW PROFESSORS AS WELL AND PUT TOGETHER A DISCUSSION PAPER WHICH IS IN YOUR MATERIALS ON THE DISK AND IT'S ON OUR WEBSITE. IT'S LONG AND IT'S DETAILED AND FRANKLY IT WILL CURE YOUR INSOMNIA. (LAUGHTER) IT DEALS WITH ENFORCEMENT OPTION. IT WAS GOOD TO SEE THE MINISTER THIS MORNING NOT ONLY SPEAKING POSITIVELY ABOUT IT BUT ALSO QUOTING PART OF IT. YOU THINK THROUGH IDEAS AND THE GOVERNMENT. WE ARE PLOWING NEW TERRITORY. I WANT TO COMMENT ON ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED AND JUST GIVE YOU A FEW BITS OF FEEDBACK ON IT. KEN IN GIVING VARIOUS IDEAS TALKED ABOUT PROSECUTIONS AND ONE OPTION IS CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LAWYERS, WHENEVER YOU SAY "ENFORCEMENT", THAT'S THE FIRST THING THEY NATURALLY THINK ABOUT AND THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE BECAUSE UNTIL YOU HEARD ALL OUR PANELISTS TODAY YOU MIGHT NOT EVEN HAVE KNOWN THERE WERE AT LEAST NINE OTHER WAYS OF ENFORCING A LAW OTHER THAN HIRING A PROSECUTOR, CHARGING SOMEBODY WITH BREAKING THE LAW AND MAKING THEM GO BEFORE A JUDGE AND EXPLAIN WHY THEY DIDN'T. AND IN FACT THE CURRENT ODA WHILE VERY WEAK HAS A PROSECUTION SECTION, THE GOVERNMENT -- THE LAST GOVERNMENT ENACTED IT BUT

NEVER PROCLAIMED IT ENFORCED, BUT IT MADE IT SUCH THAT IF YOU DIDN'T MAKE AN ACCESSIBILITY PLAN, YOU COULD BE FINED UP TO $50,000. THE LAST GOVERNMENT BEFORE THE ELECTION DIDN'T ACTUALLY MAKE AN ACCESSIBILITY PLAN AS IT WAS REQUIRED BUT DIDN'T PROCLAIM IT SO THAT IT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PROSECUTE ITSELF. (LAUGHTER). THERE ARE A COUPLE OF REAL LIMITATIONS WITH PROSECUTIONS AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO HEAR ABOUT THIS AND ALSO FOR ANYBODY WATCHING THIS ON ROGERS CABLE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT PEOPLE HEAR ODA ENFORCEMENT. OH, MY GOD IT WILL MEAN POLICE COMING TO YOUR DOOR AND LAYING CHARGES. ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. THAT'S -- WHILE IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE DISCUSS THE OPTION, IT'S NOT THE FIRST. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT THE BEST. IT'S NOT THE ONLY AND IT MAY NOT REALLY BE PART OF AN ODA AT ALL, OR IF IT WAS, IT WOULD BE A LAST RESORT WAY UP THE PYRAMID AFTER LOTS OF OTHER THINGS HAVE BEEN TRIED. WHY IS THAT? ALL THE REASONS KEN MENTIONED AND A COUPLE MORE AND THE ONES KEN MENTIONED WERE GOOD ENOUGH BUT THERE'S A COUPLE MORE. WHEN YOU CHARGE SOMEBODY WITH BREAKING A LAW AND PROSECUTE THEM LIKE IT'S A CRIME, YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH PROVING THEM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THAT'S VERY HARD TO DO. YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM BEING PROPERLY ENTITLED TO RIGHTS UNDER THE CHARTER TO REMAIN

SILENT, AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY'RE VERY PROPERLY ENTITLED TO, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT SOLVES THINGS THE WAY WE WANT THEM SOLVED. IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE MOST EXTREME PROTRACTED, RECALCITRANT PEOPLE IF THERE ARE, AND HOPEFULLY THERE WON'T BE ANY, BUT THE OTHER THING IS WE HAVE TRIED IT. BEFORE WE EVER GOT A HUMAN RIGHTS CODE IT USED TO BE AN OFFENCE IN ONTARIO TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST RACE, AGAINST COLOUR, RELIGION, AND SO ON, AND YOU ARE USED TO POLICE INVESTIGATING AND GO TO COURT, AND IT DIDN'T WORK, AND IN FACT IT'S BECAUSE IT DIDN'T WORK THAT WE CREATED THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE WHILE NOT A TOTAL SOLUTION, AN IMPROVEMENT. IT'S IMPORTANT IN TRYING TO DO BETTER THAN THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE WE NOT GO BACK TO SOMETHING THAT CAME BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AND WORK EVEN LESS THAN THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE SO I JUST THROW THAT OUT AS AN IDEA. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MY COLLEAGUES ON THE PANEL. I WARNED THEM IN ADVANCE. THEY HAVE NO PREPARATION TIME IF THEY WANTED TO GO TO THE BATHROOM. (LAUGHTER). WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT BARRIERS IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT? RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THE BUILDING CODE THAT DEALS WITH INSIDE BUILDINGS AND THE PLANNING ACT

THAT DEALS WITH OUTSIDE BUILDINGS. HERE ARE THE PROBLEMS. I'LL LIST THEM. FIRST NEITHER OF THE BUILDING CODE, NOR THE PLANNING ACT, COVERS ALL THE PROBLEMS IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. THEY DON'T ADDRESS ALL DISABILITIES. THEY'RE OUT OF DATE AND EVERY TIME THE GOVERNMENT PROMISES TO MODERNIZE THEM, WE HAVE TO WAIT YEARS, AND THEN ONCE THEY MODERNIZE IT, IT GETS OUT OF DATE AGAIN. THE SECOND PROBLEM IS THE BUILDING CODE ONLY DEALS WITH NEW BUILDINGS OR RENOVATIONS SO THAT IF AN OLD BUILDING HAS PHYSICAL BARRIERS, EVEN IF THEY'RE EASY TO FIX, THE BUILDING CODE DOESN'T MAKE YOU DO ANYTHING. THIRD. THE RENOVATIONS PART CAN BE A LITTLE COOKY. I HAVE HEARD STORIES -- I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS RIGHT OR WRONG -- THAT IF YOU RENOVATE THE UPSTAIRS OF A BUILDING YOU HAVE GOT TO COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING AND YOUR RENOVATIONS. YOU MAY HAVE TO PUT IN AN ACCESSIBLE WASHROOM EVEN IF THERE IS NO ELEVATOR TO GET TO THE SECOND FLOOR. YOU CAN UNDERSTAND SOMEBODY SAYING WHAT KIND OF COOKY LAW MAKES ME SPEND MONEY ON ACCESSIBILITY IN A BATHROOM THAT NOBODY IN A WHEELCHAIR CAN GET TO. THEY'RE RIGHT. IF THE LAW PROVIDES THAT. I HAVEN'T SEARCHED IT BUT THOSE ARE STORIES THAT WE HAVE HEARD.

NEXT. THE BUILDING CODE AND THE PLANNING ACT AREN'T HARMONIZED WITH THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE. A BUILDER MIGHT BUILD TO THE BUILDING CODE BUT THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE MIGHT REQUIRE MORE AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE BUILT BUILDINGS AND WORK IN BUILDINGS SHOULD HAVE ONE-STOP SHOPPING SO THEY KNOW THEY HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE LAW AND THE LAW SHOULD MEET OUR NEEDS. THE LAST ONE. THE BUILDING CODE DOESN'T DEAL WITH CERTAIN KINDS OF PROPERTIES. IF A DEVELOPER BUYS A PROPERTY, KNOCKS DOWN AN OLD HOUSE AND BUILDS A NEW HOUSE TO SELL IT, THEY CAN PUT STAIRS IN FRONT OF IT, EVERY BUILDING THEY BUILD IN A SUBDIVISION SO NO PERSON WITH A DISABILITY COULD BUY ANY OF THE PROPERTIES, THERE SHOULD BE SOME COVERAGE TO MAKE SURE AT LEAST SOME NEW PROPERTIES HAVE A LEVEL OF ACCESSIBILITY AND AT LEAST WHEN IT'S A DEVELOPER, NOT A PRIVATE CUSTOMER, BUILDING IT FOR RESALE. SO WE HAVE GOT THE ODA, THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, THE PLANNING ACT AND THE BUILDING CODE. HOW DO WE HARMONIZE ALL THIS? I ASK THE PANELISTS. WHAT STEPS CAN WE TAKE SO THAT WE CAN PROVIDE FOR ONE-STOP SHOPPING, BETTER STANDARDS, AND PEOPLE KNOWING WHAT IT IS THEY'RE SUPPOSE TO DO? I AM GOING TO GO ACROSS THE ORDER YOU

SPOKE AND I'M GOING TO ASK KEN FIRST.

KEN JULL: IT'S A TOUGH QUESTION. IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW WE HAVE SOMEWHAT OF THE SAME PROBLEM. YOU HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, THE ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES ACT, PROVINCIAL STATUTES AND YOU HAVE A FEDERAL SERIES OF ACTS, THE FISHERIES ACT AND WHAT-HAVE-YOU. WHAT WE DO IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IS WE HAVE BROAD PROVISIONS AND MORE NARROW PROVISIONS. AN EXAMPLE. YOU CAN GET A LICENSE TO IF YOU'RE RUNNING A FACTORY FOR EXAMPLE YOU CAN GET A LICENSE TO POLLUTE IN EFFECT YOU CAN GET A LICENSE CALLED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL TO PUT IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CHEMICAL EVERY DAY INTO THE WATER. IF IT'S ARSONIC IN THE CASE I WAS INVOLVED WITH IT INVOLVED, THERE WAS A LICENSE THAT PERMITTED A CERTAIN LEVEL OF ARSONIC, LIKE THAT OLD MOVIE, ARSON NICK AND OLD LACE. NATURAL CHEMICAL. SO YOU HAVE GOT A LICENSE TO PUT A CERTAIN LEVEL OF CHEMICAL INTO THE WATER. NOW YOU CAN BE CHARGED UNDER THE GENERAL SCHEME OF IMPAIRING THE QUALITY OF THE WATER, AND IF YOU ARE CHARGED THAT WAY, YOU COME TO COURT, AND YOU HAVE YOUR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, AND IT'S A DEFENCE, SO YOU CAN SAY, "HERE'S MY CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL. I HAVE A LICENSE TO DO THIS. THIS IS MY DEFENCE.", BUT YOU

BETTER BE ABLE TO SHOW YOU DIDN'T IMPAIR THE WATER IN ANOTHER WAY. YOU BETTER SHOW THAT IT ISN'T NICKEL IN THE WATER OR SOMETHING ELSE. ONE WAY TO APPROACH THAT QUESTION IS TO SAY IT'S THE NATURE OF LEGISLATION. THERE'S GOING TO BE A NUMBER OF PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT ARE THERE AND THE ONLY WAY TO HARMONIZE IT FOR PEOPLE TO RECOGNIZE. ALTHOUGH THEY MAY HAVE SOME COMPLIANCE ON SOME LEVELS, THEY DO HAVE A BIGGER DUTY AND THEY HAVE TO BE CAREFUL AND THEY HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. THAT'S THE NATURE OF A COMPLEX SOCIETY.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: OKAY. THANK YOU. MICHAEL, I AM GOING TO MOVE THIS QUICKLY. WE ONLY HAVE A COUPLE OF MINUTES LEFT. YOU'VE HAD VERY LITTLE TIME TO PREPARE.

PROFESSOR MICHAEL LYNK: THE CHANGES I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING WITH RESPECT TO HUMAN RIGHTS CODES, AND THE WORKPLACE, AND COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS CHANGES TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE HAS MEANT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS, TO OTHER EMPLOYMENT STATUTES IN THE WORKPLACE AND I CAN'T SEE A CREATIVE OR EVEN EFFICIENT WAY OF TACK BILINGUAL THE QUESTION YOU POSED DAVID WITHOUT SAYING WHY NOT SIMPLY OVERHAUL THE BUILDING CODE AND THE PLANNING ACT. (APPLAUSE).

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE -- THIS IS OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THOSE ERRORS -- A MOMENT IN DEVELOPMENT WHEN YOU HAVE GOT A PERTINENT ISSUE THAT DEMANDS RETHINKING OF BOTH THESE CODES, NOT SIMPLY WITH RESPECT TO DISABILITY BUT WITH RESPECT TO ALL KINDS OF OTHER THINGS IN ORDER TO UPDATE THEM BUT IT SEEMS TO BE AN INEFFICIENT AND PIECEMEAL PROCESS TO WANT TO TRY TO MAKE THESE CHANGES WITH AN ODA IN MIND EXCEPT THE ONLY WAY TO ACTUALLY EFFECTIVELY DO THAT IS GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND START AGAIN WITH REWRITING THE WHOLE PROCESS AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE -- AS ONEROUS AS THAT SEEMS IT'S NOT NEARLY AS ONEROUS STARTING TO FIGHT THIS CASE BY CASE OR IN A PIECEMEAL FASHION.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. SO FAR TWO SETS OF IDEAS BUILDING ON EACH OTHER. WHAT'S THE APERITIF?

PROFESSOR GRAHAM: DEALING WITH YOUR QUESTION, THE FIRST IS THE DANGER OF THE MOST OBVIOUS SOLUTION BEING SOME SORT OF OMNIBUS LEGISLATION THAT COVERS THE WHOLE FIELD DEALING WITH ACCESSIBILITY, AND THE OBVIOUS DANGER WITH THAT IS THAT'S EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT TO PASS. THE MORE ISSUES YOU TRY TO COVER WITH A SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION, THE MORE INTERESTED PARTIES THERE ARE DEALING WITH THAT LEGISLATION AND THE MORE FIGHT THEY'LL PUT UP AGAINST THAT LEGISLATION, SO I

USED TO ACTUALLY ACT AS A LEGISLATIVE DRAFTER. I BROUGHT YOU THE PRIVATIZATION OF CERTAIN HIGHWAYS IN ONTARIO LEGISLATION. CONGRATULATIONS. (LAUGHTER) THE BETTER RESPONSE -- SOMETHING BETTER THAN OMNIBUS LEGISLATION WOULD BE TO INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE OTHER STATUTES IN THE BUILDING, ODA. THE BILL CREATES THE NEW ODA SHOULD CONTAIN SPECIFIC SECTIONS THAT AMEND SECTIONS OF OTHER STATUTES SO THAT AT THE VERY LEAST REFER TO THE ODA SO THE BUILDERS WHO THINK THAT THE BUILDING CODE IS THE BIBLE WILL AT LEAST WHEN READING THROUGH THE BUILDING CODE ENCOUNTER A REVISED SECTION. "HEY, WHAT'S THIS?" "SOME REFERENCE TO THE ODA THAT WILL REQUIRE ME TO COMPLY WITH SOME OTHER STATUTORY MEASURE." THE APPLICATION OF THESE SORTS OF LEGISLATIVE REGIME TO BUILT PROPERTIES, THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE THAT PREDATE THE CURRENT LEGISLATION: THERE IS A STRONG, STRONG PREFERENCE -- NOT "PREFERENCE" -- PRESUMPTION IN LAW THAT ANY NEW LAW THAT PASSED IS OF WHAT'S CALLED IMMEDIATE AND GENERAL APPLICATION. THAT MEANS IT APPLIES TO EVERYBODY STARTING NOW BUT THE PRESUMPTION IS AGAINST ANY KIND OF RETROACTIVITY, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ANYTHING THAT WAS COMPLETED PRIOR TO THIS. THERE IS A MECHANISM TO OVERCOME THAT. YOU CAN EXPLICITLY IN LEGISLATION -- AND IT'S WITHIN PARLIAMENT AND LEGISLATURES TO DO THIS -- THIS LEGISLATION APPLIES

TO PROPERTIES BUILT FROM 'X' DATE FORWARD, AND THAT DATE CAN BE FAR IN THE PAST IF YOU LIKE. THE DIFFICULTY -- AGAIN, I HATE TO KEEP PUTTING UP ROAD BLOCKS. THE DIFFICULT WITH THAT IS CHARTER CONCERNS. VESTED RIGHTS TO VIOLATE CERTAIN GUARANTEES IN THE CHARTER. THOSE SORTS OF LEGISLATION --THAT SORT OF LEGISLATION RATHER CAN OFTEN ONLY BE EFFECTIVE IF IT HAS SOME SORT OF CLAUSE IN IT OVERRIDING CERTAIN CHARTER GUARANTEES AND THAT'S INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO GET PAST. THERE ARE MECHANISMS TO OVERCOME SOME OF THESE DIFFICULTIES BUT THEY ARE INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: BY THE WAY, THE ADVANTAGE WITH RESPECT TO WHAT YOU WERE JUST SAYING IS BECAUSE THE CHARTER DOESN'T GUARANTEE PROPERTY RIGHTS. THE CHANGE IN APPLICATION TO PROPERTY DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT WOULD BE A ROADBLOCK FOR US. FINALLY CAROL.

DR. AGOCS: WELL I'M NOT A LAWYER SO YOU CAN TAKE MY COMMENTS WITH A BIG GRAIN OF SALT, BUT ONE THING IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT THE ODA COULD INCLUDE A PROVISION TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AT LEAST IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR OF THE BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR AND START THERE AND SEE WHAT KIND OF EXPERIENCE CAN BE DEVELOPED WITH

HARMONIZING THE VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE PLANNING AND BUILDING SO THAT WE DEAL WITH SOME OF THESE ISSUES. I GUESS THE OTHER THOUGHT I HAVE IS THAT MUNICIPALITIES, WHEN THEY APPROVE SITE PLANS, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL SORTS OF COMMUNITY NEEDS. LIKE THE NEED FOR PARKS, RECREATION AND TRAFFIC FLOW AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER THINGS SO WHY NOT INCLUDE THE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES AS PART OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MUNICIPALITY REVIEWS A SITE PLAN PRIOR TO A NEW DEVELOPMENT TAKING PLACE?

DAVID LEPOFSKY: WELL I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR FEEDBACK. I WANT TO ASK YOU TO JOIN WITH ME IN THANKING OUR PANEL FOR THEIR FABULOUS IDEAS. (APPLAUSE). AND I USUALLY GIVE PANEL MEMBERS A GIFT. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM AN HONORARY ADDITION BY ADDING THEM TO OUR ODA LIST (LAUGHTER) AND WE NOW WELCOME THEM -- WE CALL IT THE LEPOFSKY LASSOES. WELCOME ABOARD! ONCE THE ODA BUG BITES, IT NEVER LETS YOU GO! THANK YOU VERY MUCH. KASH, COME UP ON AND ALSO THOSE WHO WILL BE INVOLVED WITH THE BRAINSTORMING SESSION. WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS AFTER EVERYBODY GETS UP HERE.

KATHY LEWIS: BUT THEY'RE GOING AWAY! I JUST WANT TO ASK A QUESTION OF PROFESSOR GRAHAM REGARDING THE LEE CASE. I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS RELATES TO PROSECUTION -- I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS RELATES TO PROSECUTION UNDER THE ODA BUT WAS THERE NO SUCH THING AS VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

PROFESSOR GRAHAM: IN THAT CASE YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE EMPLOYER WAS LIABLE AS A RESULT OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY. THE EMPLOYEE WAS NOT LIABLE. THE EMPLOYEE WAS MR. LEE. IT WAS THE EMPLOYER -- LEE'S AIR FARMING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND LIABLE OF THE INFRACTION. IF LEE ACTING UNDER THE AUSPICES OR BEING AN EMPLOYEE OF THAT CORPORATION WERE TO VIOLATE THE ODA, THEN VICARIOUS LIABILITY WOULD MEAN THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS LIABLE FOR THAT. THAT HAPPENED IN THE LEE CASE BUT THE EMPLOYER WAS A CORPORATION. VICARIOUS LIABILITY IS THE PROBLEM IN THAT CASE.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE. ALL RIGHT.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: WE'RE GOING TO START OUR NEXT SESSION. ROBIN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND JOIN US AT THE TABLE? DO WE HAVE ANY MOVEMENT?

>> ROBIN HAD TO LEAVE.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: CROP DUSTING CORPORATION AS WE SPEAK! (LAUGHTER).

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: NORMALLY ONE WOULD ASK AT THIS TIME DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ACTIVE BRAIN CELLS LEFT? WE'RE GETTING ON TO 4:10, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THE DAY HAS BEEN LONG AND SUCH, BUT I KNOW WITH THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE OUR BRAIN CELLS ARE ALWAYS ACTIVE, ALWAYS HAVE GOT A SUGGESTION, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET -- THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY NOW TO EXPRESS. THOSE SITTING BACK THERE FOR A LONG TIME, I HAVE GOT SOMETHING I WANT TO SAY. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SAY IT. WE HAVE DAVID AND PATTI WHO WILL DO THEIR BEST TO ASK THE QUESTIONS. IF THERE IS ANYTHING DIRECTED PERHAPS TOWARDS THE MUNICIPALITY, THEN I'LL ASK IF MAYBE SOMEBODY FROM THE MUNICIPALITY WOULD CARE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. AND I'M WONDERING IF SOMEBODY LIKE -- IF SANDY LEVIN IS STILL IN THE ROOM -- AND IF SO, SANDY PERHAPS YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT SOURCE OF RESPONSE FOR US. SO LET'S OPEN THE FLOOR UP FOR QUESTIONS.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE QUESTIONS. THIS IS BRAINSTORMING. DO PEOPLE HAVE IDEAS OR BRAINSTORMING?

>> COULD SOMEBODY MOVE THE FRONT PODIUM? WE CAN'T SEE YOU, DAVID.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: WHO WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT? GERALD PARKER HAS A LIST OF NAMES. HE IS STANDING THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM. I WILL LET YOU TAKE OVER AND PROVIDE THE MICROPHONE. WHO IS FIRST?

>> I GUESS I AM. I'M IN A RATHER UNIQUE POSITION. I AM A PERSON WHO HAS INVISIBLE DISABILITIES. I HAVE A RATHER ADVANCED LEVEL OF MOBILITY, HOWEVER, IN THAT POSITION I AM UNEMPLOYABLE BY ACT OF PARLIAMENT SO, THEREFORE, I HAVE A DIFFERENT QUESTION AND IT'S RESPECT TO THAT. FOR PERSONS SEEKING MEANINGFUL, GAINFUL, INDEPENDENT, EITHER/OR SALARY EMPLOYMENT IF A DISABLED PERSON -- HOW WOULD A DISABLED PERSON UNDER THE ODA PROPOSAL HAVE THEIR RIGHTS OF THE SAME ENFORCED WHEN THAT CHOSEN PROFESSION IS AT SOME TIME COMES INTO CONFLICT WITH ENACTED OR ABOUT TO BE ENACTED LEGISLATION? HOW WOULD I BE SUPPORTED?

PATTI BREGMAN: IT'S ACTUALLY A GOOD QUESTION TO WHICH THERE ISN'T A SIMPLE ANSWER. I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT FACT SITUATION TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHEN WE'RE DRAFTING THE ODA AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BRAINSTORMING IS GOOD FOR. THERE CERTAINLY WOULD REMAIN

THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AND LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE AND THE CHARTER AND SO IF THERE IS DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION, YOU COULD GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS BUT I THINK IN LOOKING AT THE ODA AND LOOKING AT MORE SYSTEMIC REMEDIES WE WOULD TRY AND LOOK AT TO WHAT KINDS OF LIMITATIONS CAN BE PUT ON SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC ANSWER RIGHT NOW BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO FEED INTO THE PROCESS AND RAISE AND COME UP WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS ABOUT HOW YOU THINK LEGISLATION WOULD HELP YOU. WHAT IS IT THAT COULD BE DONE THAT YOU WOULD FIND HELPFUL THAT MIGHT SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: LET ME GIVE YOU ONE ADDITIONAL --

>> AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING UNCONFRONTATIONAL, I HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS ATTEMPTING TO HAVE THAT ANSWER PROVIDED TO ME BY THE ODA. I AM NOW FINISHED.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: OKAY. LET ME GIVE YOU ONE ADDED PIECE OF INFORMATION AND THAT IS UNDER THE CURRENT WEAK ODA EACH MINISTRY THAT HAS LEGISLATION CAN REVIEW IT TO SEE IF IT HAS BARRIERS, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO.

>> RIGHT.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: ONE POSSIBILITY IS TO PUT IN A NEW ODA THAT EACH MINISTRY THAT HAS LEGISLATION

MUST REVIEW IT AND EITHER BE SATISFIED THERE ARE NO BARRIERS OR COME FORWARD WITH PROPOSALS, AND I WILL TELL YOU IN THE ONTARIO CONTEXT FOR EXAMPLE THAT NEW LEGISLATION IS REVIEWED TO CHECK ITS AFFECT ON WOMEN. THAT'S WHAT THE WOMEN DIRECTORATE DOES. IT PROVIDES A CHANCE TO LOOK AT LEGISLATION BEFORE IT'S PASSED. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE BUILT INTO THE ODA BUT UNLIKE THE CURRENT LAW, THAT'S OPTIONAL. A NEW LAW COULD MAKE IT MANDATORY. NEXT QUESTION.

>> PATRICK MURPHY. FORMERLY A MEMBER OF THE LONDON ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE NOW LIVING IN STRATFORD OF THREE WEEKS. WHAT DAVID -- I KNOW YOU HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE -- BROUGHT UP BEFORE. WHAT CAN BE DONE TO GET COMMUNITIES WHO ARE NOT PARTICULARLY WITH A STRONG ODA COMMITTEE OR -- I'M NOT SURE JUST WHAT ... (INAUDIBLE) ... DOES BUT I KNOW THERE ARE COMMUNITIES THAT AREN'T ACTIVELY -- HAVING A STRONG COMMUNITY GROUP PROMOTE --WITH ODA -- BRING FORTH ODA ISSUES.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: WHAT CAN BE DONE?

>> WHAT CAN BE DONE?

DAVID LEPOFSKY: VERY GOOD QUESTION. IT IS GOOD TO SEE YOU. GOOD TO HAVE YOU'RE ONGOING SUPPORT. YOU'RE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE A

HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THIS AREA DURING OUR CAMPAIGN FOR THIS LEGISLATION. THERE ARE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES IN ONTARIO BIG AND SMALL AND SOME HAVE HAD VERY STRONG GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN BRINGING THIS ISSUE FORWARD. OTHERS HAVEN'T BEEN ORGANIZED. WHAT'S BEEN GOOD IS THAT IN EVERY COMMUNITY WHERE THERE IS A POPULATION OVER 10,000 THERE NOW HAS TO BE A MUNICIPAL ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. A NUMBER OF THEM ARE REPRESENTED AT THIS CONFERENCE. WHAT THAT MEANS IS EVEN IN PARTS OF THE PROVINCE WHERE WE -- THE ODA COMMITTEE -- WHO VOLUNTEER AND WE DON'T HAVE A BUDGET DO THIS KIND OF STUFF -- WE DO IT AS VOLUNTEERS -- EVEN IN COMMUNITIES WHERE WE HAVE NEVER BEEN THERE ARE OVER 10,000, THEY MUST HAVE AN ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WHAT'S BEEN FABULOUS -- THE PROBLEM WITH THOSE COMMITTEES IS THE LAW DOESN'T GIVE THEM TEETH. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANYBODY LISTEN TO THEM OR EVEN HAVE TO ANSWER THEM. IN SOME COMMUNITIES THE MUNICIPALITY HAS BEEN LISTENING AND IT HAS MADE A REALLY BIG DIFFERENCE. WE WOULD LIKE THAT STRENGTHENED BUT WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT IN ANY COMMUNITY -- ANYBODY WITH A DISABILITY WHO IS INTERESTED CAN GO THEIR CITY AND SAY, "I WOULD LIKE TO BE ON THAT COMMITTEE" AND EVEN IF YOU

DON'T MAKE ME A FORMAL MEMBER, I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THE MEETINGS AND EVEN IF YOU DON'T INVITE ME TO THE MEETINGS I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO THE PEOPLE ON IT." AND JUST LIKE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM WHO FOUR YEARS AGO, FIVE YEARS AGO WHO ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE ODA MOVEMENT, THEY GOT INVOLVED AFTER THESE COMMITTEES STARTED AND THEY'RE DOING A GREAT JOB. THEY'RE NEW MEMBERS OF THIS CAUSE AND THEY'RE MAKING A HUGE CONTRIBUTION. WHAT YOU CAN DO IN YOUR OWN COMMUNITY, WHETHER YOU'RE IN THIS ROOM OR WATCHING THIS ON ROGERS CABLE, YOU CAN CONTACT YOUR MUNICIPALITY, ASK TO BE PUT IN TOUCH WITH THE ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE AND OFFER TO HELP. ONE THING I KNOW HAVING BEEN WORKING AS A VOLUNTEER IN THIS AREA FOR TEN YEARS WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR MORE PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD AND HELP. NOBODY IS GOING TO SAY SHUCKS KNOW WE DON'T WANT YOUR HELP.

PATTI BREGMAN: LET ME ADD SOMETHING THOUGH BECAUSE I THINK YOU TOUCHED ON SOMETHING ELSE IN YOUR QUESTION WHICH IS WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A MUNICIPALITY THAT IS RESPONSIVE? AND THERE ARE SOME. PARTICULARLY AROUND MENTAL HEALTH THERE ARE SOME ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES THAT HAVE SAID WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE'S MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS, WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE'S DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AND THEY HAVE REALLY STRUCTURED THEM IN WAYS THAT HAS BEEN VERY EXCLUSIVE AND

NOT BEEN OPEN. THE VALUE OF ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT HAVE STRONG COMMITTEES A COUPLE OF THINGS. 1. WHEN THE LEGISLATION COMES FORWARD, MAKES SUBMISSION ON WHAT'S GOING TO BE A STRONG ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE. YOU ALONE I THINK HAVE THE CREDIBILITY TO GO TO THE GOVERNMENT AND SAY LOOK WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR TWO YEARS. HERE'S WHAT'S WORKED. HERE'S WHAT HASN'T. HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO PUT IN THE LEGISLATION TO MAKE SURE THIS ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE IS INCLUSIVE, RESPONSIVE AND ACTUALLY HAS SOME TEETH. THE SECOND THING IS I THINK BY SHARING ALL OF YOUR INFORMATION IS THAT NOW WE HAVE A NETWORK OF PEOPLE WITH STRONG ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEES AND SO IF WE HEAR ABOUT COMMUNITIES THAT DON'T, WE'LL REFER THEM TO YOU BECAUSE I THINK YOU CAN THEN HELP PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITIES THAT AREN'T DOING SO WELL AND SAY HERE'S WHAT WE DID. SHARE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. SHARE YOUR INFORMATION AND HELP THEM LOBBY THEIR MUNICIPALITY BECAUSE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE POCKETS OF RESISTANCE BUT I THINK YOU HAVE AN ENORMOUS CAPACITY NOW HAVING LEARNED FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THAT WAY.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: ONE MORE THING JUST SO YOU KNOW, THAT IS IF YOU GO TO THE ODA COMMITTEE WEBSITE -- ODA.NET, OR IF YOU E-MAIL ME, WE HAVE A MUNICIPAL ACTION KIT WHICH SPECIFICALLY GIVES MORE IDEAS HOW TO

DEAL WITH THE VERY QUESTION PATRICK IS PROPOSING. WE WROTE THAT TO HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE GETTING STARTED. IT IS STILL AVAILABLE AND STILL HAS IDEAS THAT CAN HELP YOU.

>> IN ADDENDUM TO THAT WHAT DO YOU DO -- WHAT'S THE THING THAT MAKES HELP -- ROBIN IS VERY GOOD WITH THE LONDON MUNICIPAL ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO GET THE KIND OF PEOPLE WORKING THERE. JUST SORT OF BRING THAT FORWARD. WE COULDN'T HAVE DONE NEARLY AS MUCH AS WE DID WITHOUT ROBIN, BUT HOW DO YOU GET THE WORKING AT THE CITY LEVEL TO HAVE THAT ATTITUDE? WHAT DID YOU FIND, KASH, IS THE BEST WAY TO LOBBY THOSE PEOPLE TO BE ON YOUR SIDE?

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: IT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION PATRICK JUST AS ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS ARE. MOST OF THE TIME -- AND PERHAPS LET ME SAY ALL OF THE TIME THE STAFF RESOURCE PERSON THAT IS ASSIGNED TO YOUR COMMITTEE MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE BACKGROUND TO BECOME A FULL PARTICIPANT INITIALLY WHEN THEY JOIN. IT IS THROUGH THEIR OWN EDUCATION AND BEING PART OF IT, BEING INVOLVED IN THE COMMITTEE THAT THEY LEARN. ALSO YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT -- AND MANY MUNICIPALITIES THAT JOB IS PERHAPS IN ADDITION TO WHAT THEIR CURRENT JOB IS WITHIN THAT MUNICIPALITY SO THIS IS AN ADDITION. PERHAPS IT MAYBE AN ADDITIONAL

BURDEN TO THEM IN THAT THEY'RE ALREADY BUSY IN OTHER ASPECTS OF THEIR WORKLOAD AND THIS IS JUST ONE MORE THING THAT'S BEING DOWNLOADED ON THEM. YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE NOT THE END. THAT YOU ARE IN FACT ONE WORKING COLLABORATION WITH THEM TO ENSURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO IS ABLE TO WORK THROUGH THEM BACK TO YOUR COUNCILLORS AND THEN BACK TO YOUR MAYOR AND THOSE THAT ARE DECISION-MAKERS. YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT PERSON ON YOUR SIDE. AND IF YOU FIND THAT YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE TYPE OF RESPONSE YOU HAVE, THEN APPROACH YOUR DECISION-MAKERS, YOUR COUNSELORS, YOUR POLITICIANS WITHIN YOUR MUNICIPALITY AND MAKE THEM AWARE. THEY NEED TO HAVE SOMEONE THAT IS GOING TO COOPERATE WITH YOU. IF I CAN GO BACK TO YOUR PREVIOUS QUESTION. NOT ALL -- NOT ONLY ARE THERE CHALLENGES AMONG THE SMALLER MUNICIPALITY, BUT PERHAPS ALSO WITHIN THE LARGER MUNICIPALITIES. WE RUN INTO ROADBLOCKS ALL ALONG THE WAY SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S RESERVED SOLELY TO THE SMALL MUNICIPALITIES. BUT ONE WAY TO GET THE MUNICIPALITIES ON YOUR SIDE IS TO SHOW THEM WHAT IS BEING -- WHAT IS TAKING PLACE IN OTHER AREAS. WHAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ARE DOING AND THE SUCCESSES THAT THEY HAVE AND TO INFORM THEM THAT WHAT LONDON HAS DONE, WHAT PETERBOROUGH HAS DONE, WHAT ST. CATHARINE'S HAS DONE HAS BEEN GOOD FOR THAT COMMUNITY AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE

GOOD FOR OUR COMMUNITY AS WELL. MANY OF THE INITIATIVES THAT WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN ARE NOTE BIG BUDGETARY ITEMS BUT THEY DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE PEOPLE IN YOUR COMMUNITY AND WHAT WE NEED TO FIND IS A MECHANISM IN WHICH WE CAN EXCHANGE THOSE IDEAS. WE HAVE DONE THAT TODAY. WE DID THAT LAST YEAR IN THE SAULT. WE NEED TO DO THAT ON A MORE REGULAR BASIS AND WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS WHETHER IT'S THROUGH AN ELECTRONIC OR WHETHER IT'S THROUGH A CLEARINGHOUSE, NEWSPAPER. ACCESSIBILITY DIRECTORIAL (PHOEN) WAS SET UP. THAT PERHAPS THEY WOULD BE THE CLEARINGHOUSE. WE HAVE LEARNED THAT THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE CASE SO WE HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER WAY OF DOING THAT, AND THROUGH THAT PROCESS WE'LL LEARN FROM ONE ANOTHER AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO TAKE THE GOOD THAT IS HAPPENING WITHIN OTHER COMMUNITIES AND BRING THAT FORWARD TO OTHER COMMUNITY AS WELL. DAVID, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING?

DAVID LEPOFSKY: LET'S TRY TO GET AS MANY QUESTIONS IN. WE'LL BE RUNNING OUT OF TIME IN A MINUTE.

>> TRACY, SAULT STE. MARIE. WHEN WE FIRST STARTED UP OUR COMMITTEE WE HAD A PERSON ON OUR COMMITTEE FROM THE CITY AND THE CITY WAS VERY RESISTANT. WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY BUT WE ASKED FOR THAT PERSON TO BE REMOVED. THAT WE WANTED SOMEBODY WITH MORE RECEPTIVE

ATTITUDE AND THEY REMOVED THAT PERSON AND THE RELATIONSHIP THAT WE HAVE NOW -- WE HAVE GAINED FROM DOING THAT MAKE THE WORLD OF DIFFERENCE, AND THE PERSON THAT WE ASKED TO BE REMOVED WAS AN OBSTACLE BUT NOW IS ON OUR SIDE. HE HAS COME AROUND SO IF YOU'RE NOT GETTING WHAT YOU NEED FROM YOUR CITY, TELL THEM THAT YOU WANT SOMETHING ELSE. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.

DAVID LEPOFSKY: GREAT IDEA!

GERALD PARKER: JUST A QUICK SUPPLEMENT TO THAT. HAVING WORKED WITH A NUMBER OF MUNICIPALITIES, PARTICULARLY OVER THIS LAST YEAR AND A HALF WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MUNICIPAL PLANS AND EVERYTHING THAT CAME FROM IT, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS AS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STAFFERS THAT YOU NEED TO BE AWARE OF. THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT WE NEED TO DO IS EDUCATE IN THE INTERIM, OKAY, ON EXISTING PROVISIONS. THE GAPS BETWEEN THE PLANNING ACT AND THE BUILDING CODE HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH BY PLANNING DEPARTMENTS AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS WHICH ARE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF PROFESSIONALS DOING TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF LEGISLATION AT DIFFERENT TIMES IN THE PROCESS. THEY HAVE TO BE EDUCATED. IT'S NOT JUST A MUNICIPALITY. IT COULD

BE ANY DEPARTMENT THEY'RE IN. I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW FROM A MUNICIPAL LEVEL, THE BIGGEST TROUBLES THAT WE HAVE HAD IS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENTS. THE VERY PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE THAT BUILDINGS OR THE PLANS THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE, BUT FOR THE VERY ONES THAT BRING THE MAJOR PROJECTS FORWARD TO ENSURE THAT THE ENTIRE ... (INAUDIBLE) ... IS ACCESSIBLE. DEPARTMENTAL ISSUES. THAT IS A TOUGH ONE. IT IS A TOUGH SLUG WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH FOLKS THAT ARE ALMOST CULTURALLY INCAPABLE OR UNWILLING TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. MOST OF ALL, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT'S NOT WHAT YOU KNOW. IT'S WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. WHEN A SITE PLAN COMES FORWARD, AND IT'S NOT BROUGHT BEFORE THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR ANYONE ELSE, IT'S WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT'S GOING TO HURT YOU. OKAY. THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES HAVE TO BE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT PROCESS MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE AT LEAST ASSISTING THE PROCESS WITH SOME GOOD AND TIMELY INFORMATION. THE LAST POINT THAT I WOULD MAKE IS HAVE THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS THEMSELVES INVOLVED IN THE SELECTION PROCESS OF THE ADVISOR COMMITTEES. OKAY. THERE IS A LOT OF EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE OUT THERE IN

THE COMMUNITY BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE PARTICULAR MUNICIPALITIES DELIBERATELY SKEWED THEIR MEMBERSHIP OR THE SELECTION OF THE PEOPLE ON THAT MEMBERSHIP IN ORDER TO LET'S SAY DIMINISH DIFFICULTIES OR AT LEAST PROCEED DIFFICULTIES. LITTLE DID THEY KNOW THEY HAVE THE BEST SOLUTION. JOIN ACCESS COMMITTEES. MEET WITH YOUR REGIONAL FOLKS. IF YOU ARE A STAFF OR AN ACC MEET WITH YOUR STAFF COMMITTEE AS OFTEN AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN. THEY NEED TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE. THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO RELATE TO YOU NOT ONLY PERSONALLY BUT TO YOUR EXPERIENCE AND THAT IS THE ONE THAT YOU ARE HERE TO REPRESENT UNDER LAW UNDER THE ODA. OKAY.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (APPLAUSE). WE HAVE GOT JUST TIME LEFT FOR TWO QUICK QUESTIONS AND THEN I'M GOING TO GIVE THE LAST QUESTION TO KATHY OVER HERE. AND IF YOU CAN, MAKE YOUR QUESTION SHORT AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM -- I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS NOT YET ASKED A QUESTION. SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN SITTING BACK THERE THINKING ALL ALONG BUT HAS NOT STEPPED UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND ASKED YOUR QUESTION. IF I COULD GET TWO MORE PEOPLE LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.

>> I'M JOAN DALLAGHER (PHOEN) FROM THE BURLINGTON ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND I'M ALSO FROM THE HALTON REGION COMMITTEE. JUST A COUPLE OF FACTS. THE FIRST IS WE HAVE GUIDELINES THAT WE COULD -- THAT WE SHARE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS THAT SUBMIT BUILDING PLANS, AND I JUST FOUND OUT LAST WEEK THAT THE LETTER WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS GOES DIRECTLY TO THE ARCHITECT, AND THAT IN REVIEWING THESE SITE PLANS OVER THE LAST, OH, GOLLY, TWO YEARS ANYWAY THAT I CAN TELL THAT IT'S IMPROVING. THAT I DON'T HAVE TO TELL THEM ABOUT THE GRATE THAT I CAN SLIP AND FALL ON OR GET MY CANE STUCK IN. ALSO WE HAVE TWO PHASES OF "SMOOTH PASSAGES". "SMOOTH PASSAGES" IS A PUBLICATION THAT AUDITS THE LOCAL SHOPPING CENTERS TO TELL WHICH ARE ACCESSIBLE AND WHICH AREN'T, AND WE ALSO HAVE JUST COMPLETED A DOCTOR'S AUDIT WHERE WE HAVE GONE AND CHECKED THEM ALSO FOR ACCESSIBILITY WHICH I CAN TELL YOU IT'S SLIM (PHOEN)! AT ANY RATE, WE HAVE AN ACCESSIBILITY PLAN FROM LAST YEAR WITH A COST PLUS A TIMELINE. I THINK TIMELINES ARE VERY IMPORTANT. I MEAN THEY'RE GOING TO FIX THIS STEP OR THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A CUT (PHOEN), BUT WE HAVE TO KNOW WHEN BECAUSE THESE THINGS ON PAPER ALWAYS

LOOK BETTER AND, ALSO --

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: LAST POINT.

>> YES, THE LAST ONE, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE THERE WILL BE AN ACCESS ONTARIO '02 IN JUNE 2005 IN BURLINGTON. IT'S A TWO DAY EVENT. IT'S JUNE 13TH AND 14TH AND I HOPE TO SEE YOU ALL THERE.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: WONDERFUL! ONE LAST QUESTION.

>> MY NAME IS MARCY CUMMINGS AND I HAVE -- I THINK IT'S A COMMENT. IT MAY TURN INTO A QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE. THERE'S NO POINT IN HAVING EMPLOYMENT EQUITY IN THE NEW ODA IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY GUARANTEES ON TECHNOLOGICAL ACCESSIBILITY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE GOT COMPANIES OUT THERE WHO ARE DOING THEIR BEST WITH EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ON ONE HAND THEY HIRE (PHOEN). HOWEVER, WHEN IT COMES TO TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBILITY IS NOT A NO-GO PROPOSITION. IN FACT, IT'S USUALLY THE LAST THING THEY THINK OF AND I THINK THAT THE ODA NEEDS TO ADDRESS THIS. IT NEEDS TO SAY THIS ANY PIECE OF TECHNOLOGY THAT COMES INTO A FEDERALLY OR PROVINCIALLY -- ANY COMPANY THAT FALLS UNDER ANY KIND OF EMPLOYMENT EQUITY LEGISLATION, THAT THE TECHNOLOGY NEEDS TO KEEP PACE AS WELL, AND IT NEEDS TO BE MONITORED FOR ACCESSIBILITY BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY IS ONE OF OUR BEST

ASSETS. IT'S ALSO ONE OF OUR BEST DOWNFALLS. IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT TECHNOLOGY HAS ADVANCED SO MUCH THAT IT'S LEAVING US FARTHER AND FARTHER BEHIND AND THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE ENTRENCHED IN THE ODA.

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (APPLAUSE). WE'RE AT THE END. WHAT I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH IS WITH JUST ONE QUICK SUGGESTION. ALL OF YOUR MUNICIPALITIES, PLACES OF WORK HAVE WEBSITES AND ONE WAY OF EXCHANGING INFORMATION IS TO ENSURE THAT THE E-MAIL ADDRESS EVERYONE IS SENT TO IS VERY SIMPLE AND EASILY ACCESSIBLE AND WHAT WE DID HERE IN LONDON WAS TO CREATE AN E-MAIL ADDRESS ACCESSIBILITY@LONDON.CA. ANYONE WHO WANTS INFORMATION ON WHAT LONDON HAS DONE JUST SEND US AN E-MAIL AT THIS WEBSITE. ASK EACH OF YOU TO GO BACK TO YOUR OWN MUNICIPALITY AND ASK YOUR IT PERSON THERE TO SET UP A SIMILAR ADDRESS WITHIN YOUR AREA SO THAT THOSE WHO WANT TO CONTACT YOUR ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE CAN JUST WRITE ACCESSIBILITY@ TORONTO.CA. IT WILL MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR GERALD WHEN YOU SEND HIM E-MAILS, HE KNOWS THIS IS THE STANDARD FORM OF ADDRESS, I CAN SEND THIS E-MAIL OUT. WHEN IT GETS TO THAT MUNICIPALITY, IT IS GOING TO GET REDIRECTED TO WHOEVER IS IN CHARGE OF MAINTAINING THOSE

TYPE OF E-MAILS. AS A STAFF RESORT -- NO NEED FOR ANY FURTHER UPDATES AND SUCH. [Please note that the remarks of Sandy White, which would appear here, have been removed from this rough draft as she did not consent to the use of her portion of the presentation.]

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO STAY AROUND. THE FORMAL PART OF THE SESSION IS OVER BUT, YOU KNOW, PLEASE STAY AROUND. MINGLE WITH ONE ANOTHER. BOUNCE OFF IDEAS AND SUCH WITH ONE ANOTHER. EXCHANGE E-MAIL ADDRESSES WITH ONE ANOTHER, AND BY ALL MEANS KEEP IN TOUCH, AND WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT YEAR IN JUNE. GOOD LUCK TO ALL OF YOU!

>> KASH, IS THERE AN E-MAIL ADDRESS THAT IS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE?

ASHFAQ HUSAIN: I'LL FIND OUT. -- CONCLUDED AT 4:47 P.M.